Russia’s answer to Eurovision in 2025, the Intervision Song Contest, marks a significant shift from the flamboyant, kitschy glamour that characterizes Eurovision to a more Kremlin-styled event emphasizing conservative values and geopolitical messages. Launched by President Vladimir Putin as a direct rival following Russia’s ban from Eurovision, Intervision reboots a Cold War-era music competition with modern strategic aims, reflecting Moscow’s attempt to reassert cultural influence on a global scale.

Intervision 2025 officially began on Saturday, September 20, with 23 countries participating, including major powers like China, India, and Brazil, alongside Russia’s traditional allies and partners such as Belarus, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. The competition is broadcast on Russian television and promises online and international TV access to a combined audience of over four billion people, although the full broadcaster list remains undisclosed. Unlike Eurovision, no public voting occurs; a professional jury representing each country decides the winners, with a prize of about $360,000 at stake.

This revival of Intervision, named after a Soviet-era contest, is steeped in political significance. It is spearheaded by Dmitry Chernyshenko, deputy prime minister and former architect of the Sochi 2014 Olympics, along with Konstantin Ernst, head of Russia’s Channel One TV. Their involvement underscores Kremlin’s serious intent to elevate this event beyond entertainment—to a platform for promoting “traditional family values” and countering what Kremlin officials have disparaged as Eurovision’s excesses and “perversion.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has criticized Eurovision for being politically and morally offensive, framing Intervision as a “politics-free” event upholding conservative cultural norms.

This move follows Russia’s cultural and sporting isolation since its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has been suspended from numerous international events, including the Olympics, FIFA World Cup, the European Championships, and especially Eurovision. The Kremlin’s banishment from Eurovision, where it once heavily invested to showcase its soft power, triggered the push to resurrect Intervision as a new cultural front. Russian officials view Intervision as a strategic counterweight designed to reclaim influence over a global audience while reaffirming Russia’s ideological narrative.

Experts see Intervision as a form of “songwashing,” a term describing how the Kremlin leverages cultural events to sanitize and legitimize its geopolitical agendas. The contest also fits within Russia’s broader messaging emphasizing nationalism and traditionalism, a departure from Eurovision’s embrace of diversity, inclusivity, and progressive values like LGBTQ+ rights, which Russia systematically opposes. The choice to feature entries from countries considered geopolitically aligned or friendly further highlights its role as a carefully curated soft power tool rather than a purely artistic competition.

Eyewitnesses and Eurovision fans have voiced concerns over this conservative alternative overshadowing the original contest. Some fear Intervision’s emphasis on ideology and Kremlin control might appeal to certain audiences disillusioned by Eurovision controversies, potentially fracturing the global music and cultural landscape. Critics label the contest a “tool of hostile propaganda,” especially amid ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

In summary, Russia’s Intervision 2025 emerges as more than just a song contest; it is a Kremlin-engineered cultural instrument reflecting the country’s geopolitical stance and ideological priorities. Its success or failure may influence the future dynamics of international cultural diplomacy and ideological competition in the arts. Observers will be watching to see if this ‘less kitsch, more Kremlin’ contest gains traction or remains a niche event amid a fragmented post-Eurovision landscape. The coming years will likely determine whether Intervision can sustain itself as a viable global cultural alternative or merely serve as a political statement from Moscow.

For audiences and policymakers, the next steps involve monitoring the contest’s reception across participating countries, its impact on Russia’s international cultural standing, and whether it inspires similar cultural projects in other regions aligned with Moscow. Continued analysis of its messaging and influence will be crucial in understanding how culture intertwines with geopolitics in the 21st century.