It’s a tough call to make, isn’t it? Baring a candidate is inherently undemocratic, surely in a perfect democracy any candidate who is receiving votes should be considered. However given the current state of global politics, it’s also equally true that any candidate who is being manipulated by an outside government (such as allegedly Russia/USA in this example) should be restricted for the very same reasoning of allowing the voters to have their say without interference or manipulation by people who have an interest in the election being decided undemocraticly.

Ultimately, the decision to prevent any candidate, popular or not, is one that should not be taken lightly. And yet must also be a decision that can and should be made under the right conditions to protect the democratic nature of elections.

I sincerely hope that the people who made the decision in this case explain their reasoning publicly, and have a very good justification for doing so.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

-Gandalf the Grey / J R R Tolkein

Or the even more frustrating OP reply “fixed thanx” with no details on how they fixed it leaving everyone else in the dark.