"MVL never got a chance to play Ding Liren in the World Cup. So, any argument for someone else to go to Candidates like Kramnik needs to be considered later. Kramnik was disqualified earlier in the tournament"
Yes, it's not the picking of Kramnik as such, I said long ago that he would be picked since the sponsors are Russian. It's more the description of the selection process. It was stated that the selection was made earlier to inspire MVL to do his best in the final qualification event, that the pick this time was based only on the quality of the players instead of considering nationality etc.
If the pick indeed was made only based on performances, I'd say that MVL currently is higher rated, he won Sinquefield Cup, had a higher TPR during the year, did better in the qualification events, and may still win the Grand Chess Tour where he is just behind Carlsen.
But the Russian sponsor obviously picks Kramnik. Nothing to complain about there, the whole idea of the wild card is that a sponsor can buy a spot for a player that failed in the qualification events. That's how it always was in the past and that's how it was this time. It's more the rosy descriptions at supposedly unbiased chess sites how the usual suspects from Caucasus were stopped from buying spots and sporting achievements instead decided and righted historic injustices of the past etc that sound a bit tendentious to me.
One thing I've noticed recently is a certain political tendency in the reports from various chess sites with regards to chess and chess politics. To mention a few examples:
When Kramnik was given the Candidates wild card, Chess24 suggested that a historic wrong had been righted, since it had been wrong to give it to Aronian for 2016.
The 2016 wild card pick was officially published November 5th 2015. It is logical to assume that the October 2015 rating list was the last one to be looked at during these discussions, and on that list Aronian was #7 while Kramnik was #9. Aronian had also recently won Sinquefield Cup.
While it certainly can be discussed who was the "right" wild card then, it is by no means certain that the higher rated player can be stated to be the wrong pick, as categorically as Chess24 suggested. But with the man behind the sponsor money that time being Armenian it was of course logical that Aronian was picked (the two other of the three latest Candidates the sponsors were Russian and Russian players were picked).
Chess24 wrote disapprovingly about how then only money decided, while this time the "usual suspects" (their expression) from Caucasus had been stopped from "buying a spot" for their players. This time the sponsors were Russian and Kramnik was picked, just like when the sponsors were Russian and Svidler was picked for 2014. Quite logical this time too, like the one time the sponsor was Armenian and picked Aronian. But described in a totally different way. Justice righting historic wrongs vs suspects buying spots.
Of course Chess24 have their old connection to WhyChess (with Colin working for them then and for Chess24 now), and maybe that is one reason behind the more "Russian" angle of their articles. WhyChess had quite a few articles on Carlsen back in the day, and were often critical of his play:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-players/carlsen---not-a-real-chess-player3
This Russian angle can in many cases be a welcome change from the previously instead often anti-Russian slant of chess reports. But when Azerbaijan won the European Team Championship, the talk of their win being "controversial" and "suspicious" and not being connected to "fair play" etc almost overshadowed the actual achievement of the team. The Russians accusing the Azeris of cheating were very few, but given a prominent position in the final reports here and there.
Naiditsch was supposed to have kept playing since it was supposedly possible that he might win. But draw was enough, and the positon was quite drawn, and even if he had won the Azeris would of course still have won. The team captains shaking hands just before the final game was agreed drawn was blown out of all proportions, and described as the Azeris cheating, that Azerbaijan should be penalised, FIDE should take action against the Azeris, it was described as a scandal and there was talk of a formal protest against Azerbaijan etc. No one even mentioned Ukraine being penalised.
I also find it strange that the results of the team of Azerbaijan were give so little recognition
compared to the cheating complaints. Azerbaijan played four teams in the top 7 of the ranking. They won 3-1 against Russia, 3-1 against Hungary, 2.5-1.5 against Armenia, before drawing 2-2 against Ukraine, supposedly from a position of strength where they might have won if really needed (which I disagree about, but at least that was what the complaints were about). Russia played two teams seeded in the top 7 and lost both matches. If the tiebreak, as has been suggested after Azerbaijan won, was unfair, it still seems strange to me to suggest that Russia were more worthy winners.
Naiditsch has also been criticised for playing for Azerbaijan, while no one criticises Giri for playing for Netherlands. While it certainly is weird that Latvian Naiditsch has played for Germany and now plays for Azerbaijan, (combined with his being married to a Jewish-Ukrainian player:-)), why would his living in and playing for Azerbaijan be such a big thing? No one complained when he played for Germany... And it's after all not as if Azerbaijan have lots of "foreign" players compared to for example the US.
So, while many in the past had an anti-Russian tendency, now it is instead countries in the Caucasus that sometimes is getting a rough treatment. To me it is amazing that these small countries can beat Russia and other huge chess countries in Chess Olympiads, World Team Championships and Chess Olympiads. It's just a pity that they sometimes get worse PR than they deserve.