Let us look at one of the example incidents the NYT talks about. I’m not aware of additional details, I can only comment on the information provided by the article itself.

As Mr. Halushchenko tried to seize control at Ukrenergo, he also pushed a major spending plan at Energoatom. He wanted to buy two old Russian-designed nuclear reactors from Bulgaria. Mr. Halushchenko wanted to move them to a nuclear plant in western Ukraine, bring them back to life and connect them to the energy grid.

Ok, makes sense. Nuclear energy could be useful for powering the country, no?

Western donors and anti-corruption watchdogs immediately criticized the idea. The project, they said, had all the hallmarks of a boondoggle at one of Ukraine’s most notoriously corrupt state-run firms.

Unnamed “donors” and unexplained “hallmarks” of a “boondoggle”. Huh.

(I’m not saying that there was no corruption, but the article is written with so much spin it is impossible to use it to determine if there actually was corruption)

An incoming board member, Tim Stone, a British businessman with a background in finance and nuclear energy, said that he had planned to order a review of what he called the “Franken-reactors.”

Opinion dismissed.

Many unrelated paragraphs later >>

The reactor deal is on hold and is not part of the graft investigation.

… if it isn’t even being investigated for graft, what was all this hubbub about?