oft power can only succeed if it’s heard. NATO's pivot toward counter–disinformation and democratic resilience is wise: today's security threats—from at home and abroad—target social cohesion and institutional trust, not just military assets. The battle for social cohesion is fought through perception, which is shaped by who can capture attention in today’s information environment.
Adversaries often win by appearing more competent and relevant than institutions. Their messages often speak directly to people's real problems ("your rent is too high,” or “your government doesn't care"), making NATO sound bureaucratic and distant. The aesthetics of competence—of who seems to actually understand and deliver—creates the perception that can influence security outcomes.
This matters online. Algorithms and short–form content favor messages that cut deep, burying what is boring, vague, or unassuming. For NATO to be impossible to ignore and shore up unity in the face of information warfare, it can follow three strategies that together can break through the noise and actually engage audiences.
Use real voices. The best communicators—artists, leaders, etc.—win attention because they demonstrate cultural fluency. With the rise of AI–generated content, there's a glut of content that sounds generically human but lacks the insider knowledge that signals authenticity. Someone who uses slang, references the right cultural touchstones, and understands unspoken rules is no outsider. NATO needs spokespeople who talk like insiders.
Speak directly to people's actual issues. Cultural fluency doesn’t help if you’re not talking about things people care about. NATO can't package irrelevant messages in trendy formats and expect success. The content must genuinely matter to the audience. The bridge between geopolitics and daily life isn't obvious—abstract security concepts feel distant compared to immediate concerns like economic uncertainty or community safety. NATO must make those connections explicit and compelling.
Give useful things and take credit. Speaking directly to people's issues creates an obligation to actually solve them. They need to earn attention by giving the audience what they already want. High–impact efforts should have NATO's name attached to them. When people can point to some material benefit and say, "NATO made this better," the organization builds credibility that no amount of messaging can replace.
NATO's counter–efforts must demonstrate that unity delivers real benefits. In the information environment, showing beats telling every time. But it’s even better when you can do both.
a global affairs media network
Aesthetics matter in NATO's soft power conundrum
Photo by Dima Pechurin on Unsplash
June 25, 2025
NATO’s pivot toward counter–disinformation and democratic resilience is wise: today’s security threats target social cohesion and institutional trust. But this pivot toward soft power can only succeed if it’s heard, writes Thomas Plant.
S
oft power can only succeed if it’s heard. NATO's pivot toward counter–disinformation and democratic resilience is wise: today's security threats—from at home and abroad—target social cohesion and institutional trust, not just military assets. The battle for social cohesion is fought through perception, which is shaped by who can capture attention in today’s information environment.
Adversaries often win by appearing more competent and relevant than institutions. Their messages often speak directly to people's real problems ("your rent is too high,” or “your government doesn't care"), making NATO sound bureaucratic and distant. The aesthetics of competence—of who seems to actually understand and deliver—creates the perception that can influence security outcomes.
This matters online. Algorithms and short–form content favor messages that cut deep, burying what is boring, vague, or unassuming. For NATO to be impossible to ignore and shore up unity in the face of information warfare, it can follow three strategies that together can break through the noise and actually engage audiences.
Use real voices. The best communicators—artists, leaders, etc.—win attention because they demonstrate cultural fluency. With the rise of AI–generated content, there's a glut of content that sounds generically human but lacks the insider knowledge that signals authenticity. Someone who uses slang, references the right cultural touchstones, and understands unspoken rules is no outsider. NATO needs spokespeople who talk like insiders.
Speak directly to people's actual issues. Cultural fluency doesn’t help if you’re not talking about things people care about. NATO can't package irrelevant messages in trendy formats and expect success. The content must genuinely matter to the audience. The bridge between geopolitics and daily life isn't obvious—abstract security concepts feel distant compared to immediate concerns like economic uncertainty or community safety. NATO must make those connections explicit and compelling.
Give useful things and take credit. Speaking directly to people's issues creates an obligation to actually solve them. They need to earn attention by giving the audience what they already want. High–impact efforts should have NATO's name attached to them. When people can point to some material benefit and say, "NATO made this better," the organization builds credibility that no amount of messaging can replace.
NATO's counter–efforts must demonstrate that unity delivers real benefits. In the information environment, showing beats telling every time. But it’s even better when you can do both.
