There is a lack of specific information from a "confidential U.N. report seen by Reuters" I would expect more detailed comments by "U.N. experts" rather then generalisations such as "used cyberspace" This lack of detail leads me to doubt that this "confidential U.N. report" is nothing more than an executive summary or general briefing document. There is an attempt to place the information in a wider context including information about ongoing political activities. This article relies on a click bait headline and adds no substantial information. Below the usual Reuters standard.

I'm naturally skeptical of the story's premise simply because so much of it goes unproven and unbacked by evidence, citing unnamed sources throughout the piece. I feel like these are big claims and Reuters shouldn't put out the information until they have more to give readers. We shouldn't have to blindly trust the outlet or author regarding such a big story. I hope there are follow-up stories, but I'm going to hold back belief until more is demonstrated.

The writers provided facts without bias, permitting the reader to assess independently the perspectives, motives, and trustworthiness of the story’s sources.

It is impossible to know whether this story is true given no further corroboration. However, I believe this article is well-sourced due to the fact that Reuters was able to ascertain this secret document. Further context and information are needed.