Eurovision is dead – long live Intervision!

The Eurovision Song Contest (ESC) was created to heal a war-torn Europe – but has become a watered-down pop industry hiding behind a false façade of politically neutral entertainment. Two contests, two worlds – and a new Cold War where glitter, confetti, and seas of flags are used as weapons.

When ESC began in 1956, the purpose was clear: Europe, torn apart by the Second World War, was to be reunited through music. Each country’s entry was to represent its own culture, language, and distinctiveness. It was a project in the name of peace and reconciliation, where cultural identity was seen as a means to unity.

ESC was therefore from the beginning a political project – but a project aimed at peace. People did not speak of “soft values” in propaganda terms, but of reunification through culture. It was a radical idea: that notes could build bridges where bombs had torn down walls.

But if we look at ESC today, 70 years later, the picture is almost the opposite. The ambition to show national culture has been replaced by a chase for hits. English dominates – making almost all entries sound the same. The performances are so internationally streamlined that one often cannot tell which country they come from. When everything sounds like a mid-tier Spotify track, the very core is lost: diversity, cultural distinctiveness, the point it once had.

And while the EBU stubbornly insists that ESC is a “non-political contest,” reality is the exact opposite. Every year we see political statements, symbolic staging, and charged voting patterns. To pretend this is just a harmless pop party is not only naïve – it is a deliberate smokescreen.

The Return of Intervision

To understand the present situation, we must remember Intervision, the Eastern Bloc’s answer to ESC during the Cold War. Then it was West versus East, NATO versus the Warsaw Pact. Finland took part in both worlds – but the border was crystal clear. Culture mirrored politics.

And now Intervision suddenly exists again – revived after Russia was excluded from ESC. To pretend this is an innocent music festival is to close one’s eyes to the obvious: Intervision is a propaganda tool. An attempt to build an alternative cultural sphere with Russia once again at the center.

Ukraine has already called Intervision exactly what it is: “a tool of hostile propaganda and a way to polish the image of Russia’s aggressive policy.” The words are harsh, but also true. While bombers roar over Ukraine, the audience is offered glitter and ballads to present a picture of a normal, multifaceted, modern contest. It is nothing but cynicism at the highest level.

We must also not forget that culture has always been an integral part of the great powers’ games of influence. The Soviet Union used cultural festivals, theater, and sports as showcases to the West. The USA did the same during the Cold War with jazz tours and Hollywood. Today, pop music and TV entertainment are the most effective weapons. The difference is that the audience is now global – and more receptive than ever.

Diversity – or Stage Set?

Intervision 2025 attracted participants from all over the world, among them Vietnam, whose representative Duc Phuc won the contest. The official rhetoric from the Russian organizers is that this shows “cultural diversity” – but we must dare to ask: is it genuine diversity, or a carefully staged façade?

It makes no difference that more languages, more nations, and more genres appear on the Intervision stage than in ESC. What matters is who sets the framework. And in this case it is the Russian state, with its well-known history of propaganda, disinformation, and total control over media and culture. We cannot speak of free culture – only of directed culture.

It is telling that Intervision is marketed as “the more authentic alternative” to ESC. But what authenticity are we talking about? Is it greater merely because more languages are heard in the contest? Or is it only a varnish, a way of hiding that diversity exists only within frames determined by an authoritarian regime?

A New Cold War – Now with Glitter and Pyro

So what do we actually see? ESC in the West, Intervision in the East. Two contests, two worlds. Two narratives competing to define “international cultural exchange.” This is not just a coincidence in music politics. It is a symptom of something larger: we are back in a Cold War, but with new means.

The difference is that it is no longer about walls, barbed wire, and Iron Curtains – but about streaming, stage lights, and media narratives. Culture has become a weapon of war, a frontline in the battle for opinion. Whoever wins people’s emotions also wins legitimacy.

ESC is hardly innocent in this context. The EBU’s official mantra of a “non-political contest” is in practice only a convenient façade. When a song competes under a nation’s flag, when votes are distributed according to regional and political sympathies, when certain countries are systematically favored or disadvantaged – then it is politics. That the EBU continues to turn a blind eye makes it appear complicit rather than a guarantor of openness.

Whose Culture Do We Actually See?

We must therefore ask the uncomfortable question: whose culture do we actually see? Is it the culture of the countries, their identity, language, and expression – or is it a globalized standard product, as easy to digest as it is devoid of content? Is it the vision of free artists – or the propaganda of states?

This is where the battle lies. And we as the audience can no longer be satisfied with leaning back and “just enjoying.” Every song, every language choice, every light show carries a message. The question is whether we accept that message, or whether we dare to see through it.

It is easy to say “it’s just entertainment,” but that is precisely why it is dangerous. What is dressed up as entertainment slips past the radar. No one suspects pop music of being a tool of power – and therefore it works all the better.

Culture Is Politics

We must stop pretending. Culture is politics. Music is politics. ESC was politics already in 1956, but then it was about peace and reconciliation. Today both ESC and Intervision risk being reduced to pawns in a global power game.

We must therefore demand:

1. More transparency. What forces control selection, production, financing?
   
   
2. Reclaiming identity. Each country should be encouraged – yes, almost forced – to use its language, its culture, its distinctiveness. Enough of watered-down Anglo-pop.
   
   
3. Clear boundaries. If ESC is to be non-political, the EBU must act against obvious political messages. If that is not possible – admit that the contest IS political.
   
   
4. Audience responsibility. We must become more critical consumers. Voting is not neutral. Watching is not neutral. Applauding is not neutral.
   
   
5. Defense of free culture. We must stand on the side of the artists when their expression is used as pawns in power games. To remain silent is to accept.
   
   

Choose a Side

Intervision is no innocent comeback, it is part of a new geopolitical strategy. ESC is no longer the innocent peace project it once was. We are therefore faced with a choice: to accept that music is used as a stage set for power and propaganda, or to demand that culture once again stands for something genuine.

It is high time to choose a side. For even if this Cold War sparkles with confetti and ballads, it is still a war. And in war it matters to know where you stand.

Either we take back music as a space for real culture, identity, and freedom – or we allow politicians and bureaucrats to make it their next weapon. The choice is ours, but time is running out. Regardless – in May, millions of ESC fans around the world will once again be seated in front of their televisions, cheering for their favorites.