NATO’s Creative Courtship Raises Propaganda Concerns Among Writers

Several prominent writers have sounded the alarm over NATO’s recent efforts to engage with film and television professionals through a series of closed-door meetings across Europe and the United States. These writers claim the military alliance is attempting to leverage creative industries to promote its agenda and generate favorable narratives.

According to a report by The Guardian, NATO has already conducted three such meetings with film and TV professionals in Los Angeles, Brussels, and Paris. The alliance plans to continue what it calls a “series of intimate conversations” next month in London, where it will meet with screenwriter members of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (WGGB), the organization representing professional writers in the United Kingdom.

These meetings come at a time when NATO supporters have increasingly advocated for stronger connections with arts communities. Earlier this year, the Centre for European Reform think tank published a report urging governments to engage with cultural leaders, including screenwriters and film producers, to build public support for increased defense spending and to “better tell the story of why these investments in defense are needed.”

James Appathurai, NATO’s deputy assistant secretary general for hybrid, cyber, and new technology, is expected to attend the London meeting along with other officials from the alliance. The gatherings are being conducted under the Chatham House rule, a protocol typically reserved for military or intelligence-related think-tank events, which allows participants to use information received but prohibits revealing the identities of attendees.

An email from the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain seen by The Guardian suggested that these meetings have already yielded results, with “three separate projects” reportedly in development that were “inspired, at least in part, by these conversations.” The email also claimed that NATO was “built on the belief that cooperation and compromise, the nurturing of friendships and alliances, is the way forward,” adding that “even if something so simple as that message finds its way into a future story, that will be enough.”

However, several writers have expressed strong opposition to the initiative. Alan O’Gorman told The Guardian he found the presentation of these meetings as a positive opportunity to be “tone deaf and crazy.” He noted, “A lot of people, myself included, have friends and family or themselves come from countries that are not in NATO, that have suffered under wars that NATO has joined and propagated.”

O’Gorman characterized NATO’s efforts as an attempt to “get some of its messaging out there in film and TV” and accused the alliance of “fearmongering throughout Europe.” He specifically mentioned concerns in an Irish context, saying, “I see it in an Irish context, where there’s been a push through some of the media and government to present NATO in a positive light and align ourselves more closely with them. I think the Irish people, for the most part, don’t want anything to do with wars on foreign lands.”

Screenwriter Faisal A Qureshi expressed concern about the dangers facing creatives who engage with military or intelligence briefings, suggesting they risk being “seduced into thinking they now have some secret knowledge.” He warned about entering “a world of greys where morality is stretched and human rights abuses are acceptable when done for the greater good.”

In response to these criticisms, NATO stated that the workshop “follows from interest expressed by members of the industry to know more about what NATO is about and how it works.” Meanwhile, the WGGB defended its decision to host the event, saying it regularly brings in third-party organizations for events “that may be of professional use or interest to our members,” while emphasizing that “these interactions do not necessarily represent an endorsement of these organizations.”

The growing integration of military perspectives into artistic spaces raises significant concerns, particularly during a period when increased defense spending, armed conflicts, and severe humanitarian crises have become increasingly normalized in global politics. This development highlights the ongoing tension between creative independence and institutional influence in cultural production.