Internal reports from the Norwegian Ministry of Defence reveal that government officials faced significant pressure to secure positive media coverage for military procurement deals with private firms Watchbird and Warmflake. According to documents obtained by VG, an internal whistleblower raised concerns about a lack of due diligence and the potential for unethical influence in the selection process for equipment donated to Ukraine.
Why did the Ministry of Defence face criticism over procurement?
The core of the controversy involves claims that the Ministry of Defence prioritized public relations over rigorous quality assurance. An internal advisor reported that they were pressured to facilitate media exposure for deals before the suppliers had been properly vetted. While the ministry claimed that the procurement agency, Forsvarsmateriell, had evaluated the companies, the advisor stated that the agency in turn pointed back to the ministry as the approving body. This cycle of deferred responsibility left the advisor feeling uncomfortable, according to the internal report.
Did you know? The conflict involves both Watchbird, which is currently suing the ministry for 74 million NOK, and Warmflake, a firm that saw its contract suspended shortly after a state-led investigation began.
How were the “needs” of Ukrainian units validated?
Questions regarding the validity of equipment requests arose when an advisor noticed suspicious similarities in recommendation letters from Ukrainian military units. According to the report, the advisor discovered that these letters—meant to justify the purchase of masks from Watchbird—were drafted using templates created by a consultant with indirect ties to Watchbird’s leadership. Rune Jomaas, the managing director of Watchbird, told VG that using such templates is standard practice to help units in war zones articulate their needs, maintaining that the letters accurately reflected the units’ requirements.
What are the consequences for future defense contracts?
Following the controversy, the Ministry of Defence has initiated an internal audit of procurement processes linked to its industrial portal. Marita Isaksen Wangberg, acting communications chief at the Ministry, stated that the department is now reviewing how it handles public announcements regarding future contracts. The ministry has signaled a shift toward caution, suggesting that publicizing procurement intentions should only occur after contract negotiations have been finalized to avoid the risks associated with premature promotion.
Comparison: Official Statements vs. Internal Claims
| Issue | Whistleblower Claim | Ministry Response |
|---|---|---|
| Due Diligence | Companies were not properly vetted. | Claims that challenges were followed up during autumn 2025. |
| Transparency | Concerns were ignored by leadership. | States that contracts were eventually held back for further review. |
Frequently Asked Questions
- Are the companies currently under investigation? Yes, the ministry is in legal conflict with both companies, and Økokrim has previously conducted investigations into Warmflake.
- What is the Nansen program? It is a Norwegian support program for Ukraine, totaling 275 billion NOK, from which these procurement funds were intended to be drawn.
- Has the ministry acknowledged the whistleblower? The ministry confirms the existence of an internal report but notes that it is part of a confidential process and that they do not recognize all claims made by the advisor.
Pro Tip: For professionals monitoring defense procurement, tracking the “industrial portal” transparency reports is essential for identifying early warning signs of supply chain instability.
Have you followed the developments in the Nansen program’s procurement policies? Share your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for updates on government accountability.
Related reading
