I'll grant you PhantomData, but I'd argue with the other two. C++ does have lifetimes and pinning semantics, they're just implicit and (largely) taken for granted. That is, until you cause memory unsafety with either.

IMO, the overall pattern between C++ and Rust is that "advanced" use requires many of the same skills between the two, but that (1) Rust is much better about avoiding "advanced" use, and (2) Rust forces the user to be much more explicit about what they actually mean (cf. lifetimes and pinning). These are arguably more complex than what C++ does, but only in the sense that C++ amortizes that complexity in blood.

C++ does have pinning, but it is much rarer than in Rust because of user-defined move constructors.