Regardless of language, all software has bugs; that's such a banal argument it barely even needs to be made. Offensive software security is the practice of refining and chaining bugs to accomplish attacker goals. You can make it easier or harder to do that, but in the long run, more bugs classes are going to be primitives for attackers than not.
Rust is a fine language to teach people. But what Rust accomplishes for security is table stakes. People building software in Java in 2002 had largely the same promises from their language; Rust just makes those promises viable in a larger class of systems applications. But Java programs are riddled with security vulnerabilities, too! So are Golang programs, and, when Rust gets more mainstream, so too will Rust.
Aside: I'm really frustrated by the advice to validate all input. That's not useful advice and people should stop teaching it. It begs the question: validate for what? If you know every malicious interaction that can occur, you know where all the bugs are. And you don't know where all the bugs are.