NATO meetings with screenwriters spark debate over art, influence and defence narratives
NATO meetings with screenwriters in Europe and the US have drawn criticism from filmmakers who warn the closed sessions risk turning art into a vehicle for influence and propaganda.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has held a series of closed-door sessions with screenwriters, directors and producers in Los Angeles, Brussels and Paris, and plans a further meeting in London focused on security developments in Europe and beyond. The gatherings, which organizers say aim to build bridges between defence policymakers and the cultural sector, have prompted several invited creators to refuse participation, arguing the talks could be used to steer film and television narratives in political or military directions. NATO representatives are expected to include senior officials such as James Appathurai, who now serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Hybrid and Cyber Policy, and the programme is said to target writers’ guilds and leading industry figures in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Meetings held in major film and policy centres
The outreach has taken place in three major cultural and policy hubs, with sessions convened in Los Angeles, Brussels and Paris. Organizers described the discussions as part of a “series of in-depth dialogues” intended to familiarise creatives with contemporary security issues and policy thinking. A further meeting in London is planned with members of the UK screenwriters’ guild among those invited to engage directly with NATO officials and subject-matter experts.
NATO and its partners say the purpose is to foster greater understanding of security dynamics and to explore how cultural producers can reflect complex geopolitical realities. However, the closed nature of the sessions and the presence of high-level defence figures have heightened concerns among some industry participants about transparency and editorial independence.
Writers decline invitations and describe the meetings as propaganda
Several prominent screenwriters and filmmakers who were invited to the London meeting have publicly declined or privately expressed discomfort about participating. Alan O’Gorman, an award-winning filmmaker, called the proposed London session “shameful” and described it as “explicit propaganda,” saying that artists with personal or familial ties to conflict-affected countries could find such outreach insensitive and exploitative. Other invitees reportedly told organisers they felt pressured or uneasy about contributing to projects that might serve a political or military narrative.
Pakistani writer and broadcaster Faisal Qureshi said he had intended to attend to learn more but withdrew because of scheduling conflicts, later warning that collaboration in environments linked to intelligence or military bodies can create ethical temptations. Critics argue that even well-intentioned cultural engagement risks normalising contentious policies if creative independence is not strictly protected.
Early outcomes and creative projects developed from talks
Organisers say the initial rounds of meetings have already inspired creative work. Internal communications seen by industry sources indicate that three separate projects have been developed in part from discussions held in the first three sessions. NATO officials framed the engagement as consistent with a broader philosophy of building alliances and cooperation, and suggested that future artistic work could be a legitimate channel to explain security policies to wider publics.
Proponents of the initiative describe such projects as a means to enrich storytelling with informed perspectives on hybrid threats, cyber issues and geopolitical tensions. Opponents counter that commissioning or nurturing projects in collaboration with a military alliance risks blurring the line between independent art and strategic messaging.
Think-tanks urge cultural outreach while critics warn of ethical pitfalls
Some policy actors have advocated for deeper engagement between governments, defence organisations and the cultural sector. A recent report from a European policy centre recommended that governments and security institutions engage with cultural leaders, including screenwriters and film producers, to better communicate the rationale for defence spending and to build public support where needed. Advocates argue that informed cultural representation can contribute to public discourse on national security and democratic resilience.
Yet voices from the creative community stress that engagement must be transparent and free from editorial control. Several writers have underscored the danger that access to privileged information or institutional support can create subtle pressures to conform, and warned that storytelling should not become an instrument for policy advocacy or concealment of rights concerns.
Wider political backdrop: defence spending and public opinion in Ireland
The controversy over engagement with the film industry comes amid shifting defence debates elsewhere in Europe, where spending patterns and public attitudes have evolved since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ireland, for example, has seen a notable rise in defence expenditure following the conflict, a move that gained political and public backing despite continued ambivalence about joining NATO. Recent polling by Ipsos found that 49% of Irish voters would oppose joining NATO if the country were to pursue reunification, while 19% would support membership and 22% remained undecided.
These figures illustrate the complex environment in which cultural outreach is occurring: governments and international organisations are seeking new ways to explain security choices, while publics and creators remain wary of perceived militarisation of discourse and artistic platforms.
NATO officials maintain that cultural engagement is a legitimate strand of public diplomacy and education, but the unfolding debate underscores widespread unease in creative communities about preserving artistic independence. As further meetings proceed and projects emerge, the balance between open dialogue and the risk of instrumentalising art will be central to how the initiative is judged by filmmakers, policymakers and audiences alike.