Helsing

Key Findings

• Military: Helsing develops purpose-built military AI and weapons systems, with documented programmes involving Ukraine and European defence customers. The EBU investigation reported finding no evidence directly connecting Helsing technology to military operations in Israel or Gaza.^{1, 2, 3}
• Economic: Elad Gil participated in Helsing’s July 2024 financing, but the disclosure establishes neither his ownership percentage nor controlling status. The economic audit records: “No public evidence identified” establishing a controlling Israeli shareholder or Israeli-domiciled parent.⁴
• Political: Artist protests and the Spotify boycott connected Daniel Ek’s investment in Helsing with wider Palestine-related campaigning. The audits distinguish those documented protests from unverified allegations of Israeli military use.^{1, 5, 6}
• Not found: Across the four audits, “No public evidence identified” of a verified Helsing supply contract with Israeli military or security institutions, confirmed Israeli deployment, or settlement operations. These findings support the fixed BRS 0 - Tier E (Minimal/No Complicity) assessment; they do not establish the absence of every undisclosed relationship.^{1, 7}

Target Profile

Executive Summary

Helsing is a privately held defence AI company founded in 2021. Its documented activities include military software, electronic warfare, autonomous aircraft, strike drones and underwater surveillance. These are substantive defence capabilities: the audits do not characterise the group as a civilian software business. However, its military character must be distinguished from a demonstrated Israel/Palestine nexus. The documented customer programmes and deployments concern principally Ukraine and European defence, with additional Japanese trials described in the military audit.^{2, 3, 11, 13}

The strongest documented Israel/Palestine connection is the public controversy surrounding Daniel Ek’s investment through Prima Materia and artists’ withdrawal of music from Spotify. Some protests combined opposition to military AI investment with Palestine-related cultural campaigning. The EBU investigation examined how this controversy became associated with allegations of Israeli military use and reported finding no evidence directly connecting Helsing technology to operations in Israel or Gaza. Helsing’s September 2025 statement denied deployment in war zones outside Ukraine and described its footprint as European deterrence and defence against Russian aggression in Ukraine.^{1, 5, 7}

The economic record establishes Elad Gil’s participation in the July 2024 financing and Saab’s position as an investor and commercial partner. Neither establishes Israeli control of Helsing or a transfer of Helsing technology to Israeli forces. The audits also distinguish Helsing’s relationships with international defence companies from those partners’ separate Israeli business relationships. “No public evidence identified” is the recorded finding for an Israeli operating subsidiary, Israeli facilities, settlement activity, Israeli government revenue or direct financing of Israeli state or settlement institutions.^{1, 4, 6}

The fixed, human-vetted V6.5 result is therefore BRS 0, Tier E (Minimal/No Complicity), with all four domain scores at zero. This assessment reflects the absence of an established qualifying nexus in the supplied evidence record. It does not certify that all confidential contracts, technical dependencies or ownership arrangements are publicly knowable, and it does not convert broader objections to military AI into evidence of Israeli military involvement.^{1, 2, 9}

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

Helsing’s documented structure is a European holding company with integrated software, aerospace and maritime activities. Its conversion to Helsing SE was registered on 2 June 2025. The audits identify operations in Germany, France and the United Kingdom, an Estonian operating entity, and subsequent Nordic expansion. These disclosures establish an international operating group without establishing an Israeli incorporation or management centre.^{8, 10, 11, 25}

Grob Aircraft was identified as a subsidiary by September 2025 and contributes aircraft engineering and manufacturing to CA-1 Europa. The acquisition of Blue Ocean Marine Tech Systems was reported completed on 29 May 2026, with the acquired business continuing operations in the United Kingdom and Australia. The economic and digital audits record “No public evidence identified” of an acquired Israeli operating subsidiary or Israeli manufacturing operation.^{19, 23}

Ownership disclosures identify multiple venture-capital, institutional and strategic investors. Prima Materia led the June 2025 financing, while Saab combines investment with a documented commercial relationship. Elad Gil’s July 2024 participation is established, but his percentage ownership and voting rights are not. The July 2026 disclosure described Helsing as predominantly European-owned without publishing a complete shareholder register.^{4, 9, 12, 15}

No Israeli franchise, authorised distributor or Israeli subsidiary relationship was established in the audits. These are evidence-limit findings, rather than conclusions derived solely from the group’s European branding or disclosed locations.^{1, 19, 23}

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

Helsing develops purpose-built military systems. HX-2 is a precision strike munition; Altra supports reconnaissance-strike coordination; Cirra supplies electronic-warfare software; and CA-1 Europa is an autonomous combat-aircraft programme. The documented German Eurofighter integration and Ukrainian drone supply establish military activity, but do not establish Israeli receipt of those capabilities.^{2, 3, 16, 19, 20}

The military audit records “No public evidence identified” of a directly documented contract with the Israeli Ministry of Defence, IDF, Israel Prison Service or Israel Border Police. It likewise identifies no verified Israeli deployment of HX-2, HF-1, Altra, Cirra or Centaur, and no Israeli-destination export licence or end-user certificate. These findings are consistent with the EBU investigation’s failure to establish a direct connection to operations in Israel or Gaza.^{1, 7}

Supply-chain scrutiny identified Saab, HENSOLDT, Mistral AI, OHB-associated space cooperation and Destinus. The PACBI campaign cited international defence partners’ separate Israeli relationships, but the audit did not establish a Helsing component entering an Israeli platform through those partners. A commercial association supplies a research lead; it does not itself identify a transfer.^{6, 17, 20, 21, 24}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the record names actual non-Israeli programmes while failing to establish the alleged Israeli end user. Helsing’s denial is a corporate representation, not an independently complete inventory of deployments. Nevertheless, the EBU investigation separately examined the allegation and reported no evidence directly connecting Helsing technology to Israeli or Gaza operations.^{1, 7}

The dossier does not rely on a civilian-use defence for HX-2 or autonomous combat systems. Their military purpose is established. Conversely, RX-1 was announced as an academic and laboratory research platform, and the audits identify no Israeli tactical variant. Treating every research product as an Israeli weapons contribution would exceed the record.^{2, 16, 26}

German procurement, Japanese trials and NATO-oriented partnerships demonstrate wider military commercialisation. They do not resolve an Israeli procurement allegation. Japanese quantities, value and delivery schedules remained unestablished, while German additional options were conditional rather than committed expenditure.^{13, 22, 24}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

Helsing’s digital capabilities include sensor processing, electronic-warfare software, AI-assisted information fusion and autonomous-platform coordination. Its Systematic partnership integrates Helsing technology with SitaWare command-and-control software. Mistral AI cooperation concerns Vision-Language-Action models, while Lura processes acoustic information for underwater threat detection.^{17, 20, 27, 28}

These relationships establish defence technology development and integration. The digital audit records “No public evidence identified” of a Helsing technology licence, procurement award or support agreement with Israeli military, intelligence or police institutions. No confirmed Israeli deployment was established. Purpose-built targeting and combat-autonomy functions remain within the military domain rather than becoming a second allegation merely because software enables them.^{1, 2, 27}

For enterprise infrastructure, the audit records “No public evidence identified” of deployment of a specifically identified Israeli-origin cybersecurity provider, Israeli data-centre use, Project Nimbus participation or Israeli jurisdiction over Helsing operational datasets. It also identifies no Palestinian civilian surveillance dataset used to train Helsing systems. These are bounded search findings; the public technical descriptions do not disclose a complete enterprise stack or data-governance architecture.^{17, 21, 28}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is the absence of an identified Israeli customer, deployment or data route. Public announcements name European partners and programmes. The existence of acoustic surveillance or military information fusion does not establish Palestinian civilian exposure, Israeli access or settlement deployment.^{21, 27, 28}

Technical opacity remains material. Lura’s public description explains local processing and model improvement but does not identify every processing jurisdiction, retention period, infrastructure operator or access right. The audit therefore supports neither a finding of Israeli data exposure nor a comprehensive assurance that all dependencies have been disclosed.²⁸

Similarly, a partnership announcement does not prove implementation of every proposed interface. Systematic’s description establishes an announced integration relationship; it does not identify an Israeli government customer.²⁷

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

The economic audit documents substantial capital investment into Helsing, acquisitions and non-Israeli manufacturing expansion. Financing included the €450 million July 2024 Series C, €600 million June 2025 Series D and US$1.8 billion July 2026 Series E. These are inflows into Helsing; they do not establish transactions with the Israeli state or allocation of proceeds to Israel.^{4, 9, 12}

Elad Gil’s Series C participation is the clearest named investor fact requiring careful attribution. The disclosure does not establish his ownership percentage, voting rights or controlling status. “No public evidence identified” is the audit’s finding for a controlling Israeli shareholder, Israeli-domiciled parent or Israeli-domiciled shareholder with a verified holding of at least 10%.^{4, 9}

The audit records the same negative finding for Israeli facilities, Israeli payroll, identifiable Israeli revenue, settlement suppliers, settlement-origin products and direct financing of settlement businesses. Documented operations and acquisitions instead include European locations, Grob Aircraft and Blue Ocean’s UK and Australian activities.^{10, 19, 23}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that participation by an investor cannot substitute for evidence of corporate control, operational activity or a relevant financial transfer. Nor can the independent portfolios of Helsing’s investors automatically be attributed to Helsing. The available disclosures establish investment relationships, not a common operating entity encompassing every portfolio company.^{4, 9}

Ownership opacity must also be retained. Predominantly European ownership is the company’s disclosed characterisation, not a complete beneficial-ownership analysis. The record does not establish every shareholder’s current percentage or quantify possible investor distributions. Those gaps cannot support either an allegation of Israeli control or an assurance that every financial relationship has been excluded.⁹

Documented European production is relevant to the disclosed supply chain but is not exhaustive proof of component origin. The economic audit’s conclusion remains “No public evidence identified” of a named Israeli or settlement intermediary, rather than a verified guarantee covering every tier.^{19, 23, 26}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

The political record centres on public controversy, corporate deployment statements and documented European institutional engagement. Artists opposed Ek’s military AI investment, with some combining that objection with Palestine-focused cultural boycott activity. PACBI’s February 2026 Spotify campaign also cited Helsing and international defence-industry relationships.^{5, 6, 18}

These campaigns establish criticism and mobilisation. They do not themselves establish Israeli procurement, settlement support or political financing by Helsing. The EBU investigation explicitly examined the conflation of opposition to military AI with allegations of Israeli deployment.¹

European Commission records establish Helsing’s participation in defence-industry dialogues on 12 and 19 May 2025. The political audit did not verify several other previously reported meetings or the proposed Israel/Palestine implications attached to them. Those unresolved details are excluded here.²⁹

The audit records “No public evidence identified” of Israel-specific lobbying, corporate donations to Israeli military-welfare or settlement organisations, Israeli state governance rights, or verified personal contributions by the named leadership to the specified military-support and settlement bodies. It also identifies no separate corporate statement specifically addressing Palestinian civilian casualties, settlements or Palestinian self-determination.^{7, 9, 29}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence combines the company’s express denial with the investigation’s failure to establish Israeli military use. Ek’s investment is documented; Spotify, Prima Materia and Helsing must nevertheless be distinguished when attributing corporate acts. Artists’ objections to Ek’s investment do not establish that Helsing supplied Israel.^{1, 5, 7, 12}

European defence advocacy does not establish lobbying for Israeli military assistance or settlement recognition. The verified consultation record concerns European defence readiness and regulatory issues. The audit’s inability to verify additional meetings prevents those alleged meetings from carrying an inferred Israel/Palestine agenda.²⁹

Likewise, the absence of a separate Palestine-related corporate statement does not establish support for Israeli operations. Public silence, disclosed European strategic priorities and unverified personal associations cannot replace evidence of an attributable act.^{1, 4, 7}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Complicity Index Score

Method: V6.5 - final, human-vetted scores.

• V_MAX: 0.00 Avg_OTHERS: 0.00
• BRS Score: 0 Tier: E (Minimal/No Complicity)

All domains remain zero because the audited record establishes no qualifying Israeli military, digital, economic or political activity attributable to Helsing; investor participation, partner associations and boycott allegations do not bridge that evidentiary gap.^{1, 4, 6} Consequently, V_MAX and Avg_OTHERS are both 0.00, producing the fixed BRS 0 / Tier E result. The scale-free, evidence-only, vetted method assesses documented activity and attribution rather than treating general defence-sector participation or company size as proof of complicity.

Methodology Note

• Evidence base: This dossier compiles only the four supplied domain audits, reviewed through 22 October 2026. Source references reproduce their cited evidence; the dossier adds no independent investigation.
• Scale-free assessment: Impact (I) concerns the activity type; Magnitude (M) concerns its scale; Proximity (P) concerns directness. The supplied final V6.5 values are preserved without recalculation or adjustment.
• Temporal treatment: Divested or exited operations are mitigated rather than presented as continuing activity. Announced projects, conditional procurement options and completed transactions retain their distinct evidentiary status.
• Entity attribution: No transitive guilt applies. Investors, executives, portfolio companies and commercial partners require an attributable act, control relationship or documented transfer before their separate conduct can be assigned to Helsing.
• Settlement treatment: Established settlement operations would count in both Economic and Political. No such operation was established in these audits.
• Negative and unresolved findings: “No public evidence identified” means the audited checks did not establish the relationship. Unverified allegations, incomplete ownership disclosures and undisclosed technical architectures remain limited or unresolved; they are neither hardened into accusations nor converted into comprehensive clearance.