I think it's meaningless and futile to try and shove any sophisticated programming style into the same square-shaped hole.
People arguing whether Language X is "true OOP" or "true FP" or "true XYZ" would probably be better off investigating specific cases in which the interactions between a given subset of language features and programmers' a priori expectations clash. This is way more productive and meaningful because it can lead to actual results and observations, instead of everybody ending up arguing about arbitrary definitions.
Furthermore, I don't think Rust would benefit from such a hype train approach – sensible ideas could then be rejected and not-so-sensible ones could be implemented in the language in the name of making it "pure BOP" (or whatever it ends up being called).
See my previous discussion on the topic.