I have to disagree. Rust is not even close to behemothness of C++.

Perhaps, but it is definitely not a C replacement, but a replacement of C++.

I think Rust primarily being a C++ replacement has been acknowledged ever since it was considered for use in Firefox.

This whole idea of an "x replacement" doesn't make any sense in the first place. Language boundaries are not that strict. People say "Zig is a C replacement, Rust is a C++ replacement" but even Andrew Kelley himself says that Zig is a replacement for the C++ he was writing at the time. I work with a lot of C folks who never liked C++ who liked Rust.

Then these languages' developers and/or vocal users should not have used it.

Like you said, even Andrew Kelley said that Zig is a replacement for the C++. At the time. IIRC he kept going back and forth C and C++, although I may be wrong. I only remember him saying C++.

It’s hard to argue with that. However, I don’t see how it’s relevant to this particular discussion.

I haven't dabbled in rust since 2018, but if rust has managed to be as complicated as C++ while being a fraction of the age then I would think that would be some kind of macabre achievement in its own right.

Both are, indeed, and I don't know if this was ever promised, but Rust is way simpler than C++ (today, at least).