The revival of the Intervision Song Contest in Moscow in 2025 was heralded by its Russian organizers as a beacon of apolitical cultural exchange and a cultural platform for nations. The event was a success, especially due to several key participants. But who, exactly, sent them?
While countries like Vietnam and Brazil were officially backed by their respective government ministries, the entries from three globally watched nations were distinguished by a conspicuous lack of clear, public accountability from an official state organization.
Missing Authority
For the United States, Kenya, and Serbia, there is no publicly confirmed evidence that a government ministry, a public broadcaster, or other official state-run organization formally accepted the Russian invitation or managed the artist selection. This stands in stark contrast to the transparent governmental involvement of other participants.
United States (US): The US entry, which saw artist Vassy withdraw at the last minute, was almost certainly a private arrangement between the organizers and the artist. Was the US actually invited, or was Vassy invited? There was no confirmed involvement from the Department of State or a major US broadcaster. Rock legend Joe Lynn Turner ultimately did serve as the non-governmental US juror. The entry allowed the organizers to claim global interest, but was there?
Serbia: The Serbian entry, represented by Slobodan Trkulja, was strategically invaluable to the Intervision organizers. As a candidate country for the European Union, Serbia is the only nation to be actively involved in both the EU-focused Eurovision and Russia's Intervision. The Serbian state broadcaster (RTS) typically focuses on Eurovision, and despite Trkulja holding the title of Cultural Ambassador, there is no public evidence that the Serbian government officially backed the Intervision entry (although it is highly possible that they were on board, as some government officials congratulated the singer for the participation).
Kenya: Similar to the US, Kenya's inclusion was likely facilitated by the artist, Sanaipei Tande, or a private management group, as no Kenyan government body or public broadcaster publicly acknowledged sponsorship.
The Reality
The Intervision contest was revived as a cultural counterweight to Eurovision, following Russia's expulsion from the latter. The ambiguity surrounding the entries of some nations reveals a deeper truth about the event.
Listing countries like the US lent the contest a sense of global parity and prestige. For the participating governments, allowing a private entity to send an artist provided a degree of deniability, enabling them to engage in cultural diplomacy with Russia while avoiding direct political blowback from Western allies. The organizers skillfully used the commitment of these performers to score a win, proving that artists even from Western-aligned countries were willing to take the stage in Moscow. In the end, both the organizers and some participating countries could benefit from a non-government-backed entry.
Unfortunately, though, the lack of official transparency for the entries highlights the inherent difficulty of separating art from politics on a stage so explicitly designed to serve a strategic foreign policy objective. The US withdrawal suggests that if the contest wants to be successful, it needs to be more concrete and transparent in every aspect, and ultimately, some form of agreement on an authoritative level should probably exist. This way, the popularity of the contest will dramatically rise.
Written by Manios Themis
Intervision Song Contest specialist. Combines a Computer Science background with exhaustive knowledge of every edition (1965 Golden Clef, 1977–1980 Sopot era, 2025 revival, and Saudi Arabia 2026). Author and curator of the most complete independent Intervision archive online.
Full bio
0 Comments