The reality is that RF engineers simulate circuits with all those components. Those simulators rely on KVL and KCL, and they work. There is no argument here beyond semantics.

We need to use this thread to end this confusion once and for all. And the problem is not related to semantics.

Kirchhoff implies lump-modelling. Inverting this logic is false. Let's see this better exposed with a truth table.

Kirchhoff holds | Lump-modelling possible | Implication | Comment |

True | True | True | Every circuit for which Kirchhoff holds can be automatically lump-modeled. |

True | False | False | If you're saying that you can't lump-model a circuit where Kirchhoff holds you're contradicting the line above. So, false. |

False | False | True | If you find a circuit that is impossible to lump-model then Kirchhoff doesn't hold (Lewin's circuit). |

False | True | True | Kirchhoff doesn't hold, but you can still lump model the circuit under certain conditions. Feynman picture 22-9 |

Inside a transformer, an inductor, a generator, an antenna or a transmission line, Kirchhoff doesn't hold. But you can still lump model them.

People see that those components can be lump-modeled and think that Kirchhoff holds. No, it doesn't. It will be impossible to explain how those things work using Kirchhoff.

But they do worse. Because they see that the behavior of the components that can only be explained by Maxwell's equations can be lumped, they think that every circuit can be lump-modeled.

This intuition is false.

Lump-modelling is a technique for circuit analysis. Kirchhoff's laws are the description of a physical phenomenon. Let's not confuse them.