They will also do this in C++ or Rust. The only difference is that in Rust they will pretend it is ok because they wrapped it "unsafe", so if they mess up it is nobody's fault because it can not possible be a problem with Rust or the Rust programmer, so it was unavoidable fate.
What are you even talking about?
I've never saw anyone claim that doing UB in Rust is okay because its wrapped in an unsafe block?
If anything I've saw the exact opposite of this, cases of UB in libraries is considered a bug almost always, vs in C or C++ where "its the users fault for doing the thing wrong".
I notice you spreading an awful lot of bs about rust lately, not sure what the deal is but its pretty childish and lame, not to mention objectively wrong.
Rust initially advertised itself as preventing leaks, which makes sense as it is supposed to have the power of automatic memory management but without the runtime overhead.
Unfortunately, shortly before Rust's release it was discovered that there were some APIs that could cause memory corruption in the presence of memory leaks. The decision was made that memory leaks would be too complicated to fix before 1.0: it would have had to have been delayed. So the API in question was taken out and Rust people quietly memory-holed the idea that leak freedom has ever been considered part of memory safety.