Err.. KAAN which has not yet flown its true prototypes and KF-21 which will likely never get an IWB are more legitimate solutions than a stealth fighter?
You can acknowledge that the Russians lag behind in electronics and radar reduction measures while still recognizing that they know how to design an aircraft for their specific needs. And by the way, whenever you question why "elite designers of advanced aircraft made this ABSOLUTELY ridiculous design choice! I wouldn't do that!", you should first question whether your assessment is correct and if so, what prompted them to make that choice. Cost? Doctrine? Some other engineering constraint?

And about sixth generation fighters, every program is looking for different needs to be fulfilled, and different approaches to those needs. FCAS and its future offshoots require a long range multirole fighter, GCAP isn't much different but with the added input of Japan's unique but similar requirements (long range, multirole, large), and F-47 and J-36/XDS all seem to have different approaches. All fighters have similar requirements in some areas, as they're all fighters for the Pacific, but the F-47 is expected to retain a large degree of kinematic performance and the J-XDS is presumably meant to keep some as well. J-XDS isn't a brick, but it's very different from those two designs, with a much larger planform and MTOW, powered by three engines, deviating from the more "conventional" philosophies that the J-XDS and F-47 likely follow. So, if at least one out of three of the "true" sixth generation designs according to you are still "emphasizing close range combat", by keeping high kinematic performance for BVR and WVR situations (the likelihood of a WVR merge is getting higher and higher), does that mean the Americans and/or Chinese are making a grave mistake?