This nonsense again. All lenses benefit from higher res sensors* (at least for now); and if someone is using long focal lengths (eg for bird photography) then medium format doesn't even have the glass. Try to expand your horizons a little!
*obviously it's diminishing returns and diffraction becomes increasingly important but still
If you're going to criticize, it would be more noble if you didn't let your judgments become personal. This reduces your credibility and your motivation to even respond to your comment.
I don't want to convince you, but you have no visible advantage in the image result. Faith may move mountains, but in the end it's the photo that counts. the lens simply only delivers a limited number of lines. If the sensor scans this one line with three or four lines of pixels, you won't get more detailed information in the photo.
There are a few other side effects that are beneficial. It's so irrelevant that it's definitely not worth $5000.
With the R5II it is hoped that, in addition to the higher resolution, it will also be faster. Shutter or burst speed, tracking and focus speed. But that alone would only be so interesting for very few customers that they would pay so much money for it.
The R5 is completely sufficient for me and even for that many lenses are not good enough to max out the system.
Medium format systems definitely have their advantages - that's why they exist. Commercial studios use them. A Fuji film like this isn't much bigger than a full frame camera. A system is not an all-rounder.