Kolomoisky is undeniably a complicated figure in Ukraine (see: recent NYT interview), but I'm trying to figure out what you think the link is between Hillary Clinton and the internal self-lending policies to Privatbank executives.
After Zelensky's election I went to a forum among Ukraine experts, and there was sharp disagreement among them about whether Kolomoisky was a thief, someone who engaged in some Western style investment banking under Eastern-european rules, or a combination of the two. Someone in the audience strongly took the position that all oligarchs steal, but that Kolomoisky was the only one who effectively "gave some back" by financing an initial defense force in the Dnipro region. There is a strong argument that Kolomoisky, who was the governor of the region at the time, effectively stopped the Russian forces from getting outside of Donbass and Donetsk by doing so; stopping the bleeding in the war with Russia.
Today, it looks increasingly like Kolomoisky is unlikely to get his real goal - a controlling stake in Privatbank - because that would cause the IMF to withdraw the next tranche of funding and loan guarantees. This has made Kolomoisky take the public position that if the West won't give him back his bank, he might as well back Russian reunification with Ukraine. That makes him fundamentally self-interested, rather than a patriot.
Kolomoisky's relationship with Zelensky is complicated. Their professional fortunes were definitely tied together, and a Kolomoisky bail-out would be the biggest shot to the anti-corruption message of the Servant for the People party. That said, if you've watched Zelensky's show, and talked to people from Ukraine, it is obvious why he won the election. And thus far, Zelensky really has done a lot to decrease corruption in the country. While the Kolomoisky situation is the biggest political issue in domestic Ukrainian politics, it's developing and it's looking more and more like Kolomoisky will end up being a springboard rather than the bag man at the end of the day.
Near as I can tell, your argument is that Kolomoisky paid those militias in 2015, and later stole money from Privatbank, and that because the IMF gave money to Ukraine this must mean that Hillary Clinton was involved in the Privatbank scandal somehow. Needless to say, there's a few missing steps in this analysis and the Clinton part feels like weirdly motivated reasoning.
I do have a funny Hillary Clinton related story from when I was Kyiv, but I suspect that this isn't the audience for it. Too conspiratorial.
