I think you have some point (especially for the definition of "systems programming"), but in my perspective Rust has a possibility [1] to encompass the largest possible meaning for systems programming. Here's why:

Rust the language is really composed of two almost identical subsets, "safe" one and "unsafe". Safe Rust is what you will normally see, governed by normal safety rules and abstractions. Unsafe Rust is not what you will normally see, but still governed by safety rules and abstractions, only with an escape hatch. What I feel is that safe Rust covers the higher-level subset of "systems programming" (predictable performance, strong abstraction and safety), while unsafe Rust covers the lower-level subset of "systems programming" (excellent performance, near-complete control over everything). And still they are almost identical, so that the abstraction made in unsafe Rust is usable in safe Rust, and that's ideally how it covers the entirety of "systems programming"---the only border is the abstraction itself. Of course, provided that we have enough supply for appropriate abstractions (the community is trying hard with several promising results though).

Rust programmers do like the safety guarantee of safe Rust and rarely talk about unsafe Rust, but I think unsafe Rust plays a large role in the possibility of Rust. It's much closer than the border between, say, "glue" languages and their implementation languages. We don't change the fact that we will sometimes have to bend the rules (it's probably impossible). Instead we let you bend the rules, but only when you are in the cage. And that cage is, while not immunable to every attack, really strong.

[1] The advocacy naturally advocates for something's possibility and not for something's success. So it is still correct that Rust still lacks some solutions for existing problems, though it's not inherent.