Since you're using a link-state database R6 will learn of 22.214.171.124 and it will be able to deliver a packet, destined to 126.96.36.199, to R1. Then static routing would take over from there.
What is the drawback of building these kind of topology
Not sure what you mean by this. What's the drawback of using static routing???
If your apply only static routes, you must configure the static routes in each router for each network according to the case.
If you use ospf as routing protocol and in some routers apply static routes, you could manipulate the sending of the packet to another next-hop address that indicate for this static route.
If you add R6 to R1 and configure OSPF, it will learn the route to 188.8.131.52 through OSPF.
OSPF will tell it that R1 is the next hop to this network.
If there are no static routes, the route learned from OSPF will be installed into the routing table.
When a packet starts moving, R6 will look at it's routing table. It will use the route installed there, which in this case was learned through OSPF.
When the packet moves to R1, R1 will look in it's routing table, and will use the route installed there. In this case, this was learned as a static route.
Each router will make their own decisions based on the appropriate route in their routing table.
OSPF, static routes, EIGRP, BGP, whatever, are just ways to learn about routes. What really matters is what's in the routing table, and each router makes their own decisions.