at least Rust -> C ffi is zero cost (usually)
It would be wise to ignore the language distraction and remember that most urges to rewrite are just flat out wrong. The standard and well respected advice about rewrites doesn't go out the window just because of a fad language, if anything they apply more strongly.
Much of what people perceive as cruft is most of the actual value-- the stored knowledge from years of experience using the software in practice. Few "clean" programs are actually complete.
But I usually append that quote with "but then again, you're not Tridge" :)
Kernighan and Plauger said "don't patch bad code: rewrite it". That is definitely true. And there's a lot of bad code.
Mature software can have a bunch of hard to fix bugs that you can't motivate anyone to work on any longer. If you want to continue making progress you have to route around the damage somehow.
I think there are probably three cases here:
(1) You have perfectly good software and your only motivation to rewrite is infatuation with how great Rust seems. In this case, yes, that's unproductive. (Infatuation-driven design is poor engineering and is a fairly widespread problem in the software industry.)
(2) You already have other reasons to want to rewrite (design could be improved, code is in a poor state, etc.), and you're deciding between languages. In that case, a rewrite could be productive even if you didn't use Rust.
(3) You have mature software that appears relatively free of obvious, known bugs, but it's written in an unsafe language, and it would be valuable to have the additional confidence that a safe language could provide. Security-sensitive or other critical applications are where this is most likely to make sense.