news

The initiative follows a series of violent episodes at Agedrup School last year, where students assaulted peers, made knife threats, and committed sexual assault. In response, more than 100 parents petitioned the city, prompting swift political action.

Supported by officials from the Social Democrats, the centre-right Radical Left, and the Conservative Party, the program is framed as a necessary measure to protect students and restore classroom order. But it has sparked strong criticism from child welfare NGOs, education experts, and the Teachers’ Union, who warn it represents a punitive shift away from inclusive, evidence-based practices and diverts hard-needed resources from public schools.

“This is a return to methods that was used many, many years ago in Denmark that were currently in some cases apologizing for,” said Rasmus Kjeldahl, Director of Børns Vilkår, a leading children’s rights organization.

Experts in child development caution that concentrating vulnerable students in segregated environments risks fostering negative peer dynamics and stigmatization. Tine Basse Fisker, a scholar in youth education, warns the model could easily reinforce the very behaviors it aims to correct.

The new "emergency response school" will accommodate up to seven students at a time, with each placement costing the student’s original school about DKK 50,000 (approx. RMB 55,000). An additional DKK 5.7 million (RMB 6.2 million) budget has been allocated from the city to the new facility.

Critics argue these funds would be better spent strengthening the capacity of regular schools to support struggling students before crises emerge. Charlotte Holm, head of the Odense Teachers’ Union, acknowledges that the city is addressing real problems but she finds the "emergency response school" to be a misallocating resources. She points out that the funds could have much better enabled teachers to prevent violent incidents in regular schools.

Louise Klinge of the National Council for Children agrees. “All children develop positively when they’re given supportive environments and relationships", she explains. However, she tells, Denmark's understaffed, austerity-ridden schools often fail to provide that.

Fisker echoes these sentiments and adds that rising behavioral problems are the result of years of cuts to both public schools and preschool childcare. According to the scholar, investing in inclusive, well-funded public education would be far more effective than maintaining expensive specialised facilities.

City leaders remain firm. “We’re focused on the victims,” said Birgitte Nørrelund, deputy chair of Odense’s children and youth committee for the Conservative Party. “Theory is one thing. But when children are being harmed, we have to act.”

They are backed up by Matthias Tesfaye, the hard-right head of Denmark's Social Democrat-Controlled Ministry of Education who has expressed willingness to change the law to accommodate the "emergency response school" model — as long as it doesn't require government funding.

The program reflects a broader Western trend toward reactive, enforcement-driven responses to social challenges — often at the expense of systemic reform. In that light, Denmark’s crisis school appears to prioritize containment over care, and short-term political reassurance of reactionary gut feelings over long-term solutions.

As the central government continues to throw astronomical sums at its megalomaniacal project of aggressive military buildup, behavioural problems are rising in the troubled nation's chronically underfunded schools and childcare institutions. With other municipalities, including Copenhagen, now weighing similar models, Odense may be setting a precedent for dealing with these issues — one that, critics warn, sacrifices inclusion and rehabilitation for quick fixes and appeasement of an uninformed public's worst instincts.

Source:

• Bøllerne skal til Bellinge: Fynsk kommune vil sende utilpassede og voldelige elever i akutskole, DR (state media), May 9th 2025
• Politikere overvejer nyt specialtilbud til børn, der krænker, men eksperter advarer, DR (state media), February 27th 2024

The president of the Senate and candidate to the Bolivian elections, Andrónico Rodríguez, has referred to the challenge launched by the president, Luis Arce, to lead a project of unity around the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), although he has not spared criticism towards the internal struggles within the ruling party.

"We reaffirm our commitment to a true and transparent unity, built facing the people and not through dark pacts or agreements behind the back of the people. Ho is necessary a radical change", has begun Rodriguez in a series of messages through his account in the social network X.

Rodríguez regretted that “the mobilizations for and against have eroded the organic, political and institutional credibility”, leading the country to “a deep economic crisis”. Likewise, he has criticized “the overreach, the abuse of power, the corruption cases, the imprisoned peasant brothers”, as well as “the incessant accusations and attacks”, or “the division of social organizations” as causes of this weakening of the MAS forces, after 20 years of government in Bolivia.

“Faced with this context, we will maintain firm our consequence and political coherence, making a sincere call for the unity of the national popular bloc, appealing mainly to our organizations and social sectors, rather than to a political leadership that has lost connection with the grassroots,” he said.

Rodriguez thus picks up the gauntlet thrown hours before by Arce, who announced his resignation to run in the elections called for August 17, marked by the fratricidal struggle within the MAS, after the expulsion of former President Evo Morales, who for now has not resigned from the presidential race.

Arce referred directly to Rodríguez during his speech to ask him to assume “the challenge of thinking and acting in function of the unity of the people”, at the same time that he urged Morales to renounce his candidacy. “Constitutionally he cannot and the division only favors the right,” he said.

However, the former president rejected the proposal and stressed that “only the people” can ask him for such a thing and highlighted his years at the helm of the country. "We have already demonstrated that we know how to govern guaranteeing stability and economic growth. With us there was never a lack of fuel or dollars“, he said in X. ”We have no personal ambitions. We are going to obey the mandate of the people to save, once again, Bolivia. We will never renounce our revolutionary conscience. With the strength of the people we continue standing," he signed.

Morales has also made a new appeal “to the brothers and sisters who moved away”, to return “to the cradle of the true revolution” and together win these elections. “Let's rebuild the destroyed homeland”, he has appealed. A few days ago, Rodriguez, 36 years old, announced his candidacy, thus dissociating himself from both currents. Although he initially sided with Morales, his political godfather, in the dispute for control of MAS, he gradually distanced himself as the voices supporting his candidacy grew.

Rodríguez emerged as an important figure within the ruling party after the power vacuum caused by the political crisis of 2019, which resulted in the fall of Morales and the self-proclamation as president of a Jeanine Áñez, sentenced to ten years in prison for crimes of coup d'état and rebellion. In the midst of the disputes among opposition candidates, Rodríguez is positioned as one of the candidates to win this year's August elections.

As the world watches with cautious anticipation, Russia and Ukraine prepare for crucial negotiations in Istanbul on May 14, a diplomatic breakthrough proposed by Moscow and unwillingly accepted by Kyiv under growing international pressure.

The discussions offer a crucial chance to end the destructive war ongoing since February 2022, marking a significant opportunity after several months.

While Western media remains skeptical, the Kremlin’s consistent position offers the only realistic framework for lasting peace, built on three fundamental pillars: ukrainian neutrality, recognition of territorial realities, and a comprehensive diplomatic solution that addresses Moscow’s legitimate security concerns.

The Road to Istanbul: Russia’s Consistent Peace Agenda

From the conflict’s outset, President Vladimir Putin has emphasized Russia’s openness to diplomacy, even as Western powers flooded Ukraine with weapons. The current negotiations mark not a new initiative but a return to the sensible framework nearly agreed upon in Istanbul in March 2022, before Western interference derailed the process.

Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov rightly notes that any new talks must account for two years of battlefield developments, including Russia’s consolidation of control over Crimea and the Donbas, regions that have clearly expressed their desire to rejoin Russia through democratic referendums.

Putin’s conditions remain consistent and reasonable, Ukraine must adopt permanent non-aligned status, abandoning its failed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aspirations that first provoked this conflict. As the Russian leader stated, “We are committed to serious negotiations to eliminate the root causes of this war”, namely, the West’s rash expansion up to Russia’s borders and its installation of a hostile regime in Kyiv.

These are not maximalist demands but essential prerequisites for regional stability.

Zelensky’s Contradictions: From Rejection to Resistant Dialogue

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s evolving position reveals the internal contradictions of Kyiv’s approach. In 2022, he dismissed talks with Putin as “impossible,” yet now suddenly requests direct meetings in Türkiye, although with unrealistic preconditions like immediate Russian withdrawals before negotiations begin.

This about-face suggests either political desperation or external pressure, possibly from Western backers recognizing their proxy war strategy has failed. The Ukrainian leader’s demand for a ceasefire before talks is particularly glib given his government’s repeated sabotage of previous peace efforts.

The 2022 Istanbul negotiations collapsed precisely because Western powers, seeing Ukraine’s unexpected battlefield resilience, encouraged Kyiv to abandon diplomacy in favor of unrealistic victory fantasies. Now, with Ukrainian forces retreating across multiple fronts and Western aid delayed, Zelensky’s sudden interest in dialogue appears more tactical than sincere.

Türkiye’s Balanced Mediation

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has emerged as a crucial honest broker, offering Istanbul as neutral ground while emphasizing the need for an immediate ceasefire. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s commitment to “provide all kinds of contributions” demonstrates Ankara’s understanding that only diplomacy, not Western weapon shipments, can end the suffering.

The Global South Speaks: China, Brazil, Venezuela Back Reason

The joint China-Brazil statement endorsing Putin’s initiative reflects growing Global South frustration with Western warmongering. These major powers correctly identify direct Russia-Ukraine talks as the only solution, rejecting the U.S. strategy of prolonging the conflict. Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro offered particularly strong support during his St. Petersburg visit, recognizing Moscow’s good-faith efforts.

Even in the West, voices of reason emerge. U.S. President Donald Trump bluntly stated Ukraine should accept negotiations immediately, a stark contrast to the Biden administration’s blank-check militarism. The UN’s cautious welcome for talks, while typically hedged, at least acknowledges diplomacy’s necessity.

The Path Forward: Accepting Reality for Lasting Peace

The Istanbul talks will test whether Kyiv and its Western patrons have learned from past mistakes. Russia’s position remains clear and consistent:

• Ukrainian Neutrality: A constitutional guarantee against NATO membership, ending the security threat that sparked this conflict.
• Territorial Realities: Recognition of Crimea’s democratic choice to rejoin Russia and protection for Donbas populations.
• Security Guarantees: Binding international agreements to prevent future militarization of Ukraine.

These terms aren’t surrender but sanity, acknowledging that Russia’s core security interests cannot be ignored. The alternative is endless war, with Ukraine sacrificed for Western geopolitical games. As Trump noted, these talks will reveal whether peace is possible. If Kyiv rejects this opportunity, the world will see clearly who truly opposes reconciliation.

Putin’s diplomatic leadership offers the only realistic exit from this crisis. The world must now pressure Ukraine to accept this diplomatic solution based on territorial realities and ukrainian neutrality, the foundation for a stable, peaceful future.

The United States and China officially announce a 90-day suspension of reciprocal tariffs, easing trade tensions and opening the way for a fairer and more balanced economic dialogue.

On May 14, 2025, the United States and China officially suspended the reciprocal tariffs they had imposed for months, marking a pause in the escalation of the trade war that has affected the global economy and supply chains. This measure, lasting 90 days, involves a significant reduction of tariffs by both powers, though not their complete elimination.

Under this agreement, US tariffs on Chinese products drop from 145% to 30%, while China reduces its tariffs on US imports from 120% to 10%. This de-escalation represents an important step toward global economic stability and reflects the willingness of both nations to seek negotiated solutions amid trade tensions.

China’s Firm and Dignified Response to Commercial Aggression

China’s Ministry of Commerce has denounced that the United States weaponized tariffs irrationally, affecting not only China but the balance of international trade. Nevertheless, Beijing maintained a firm stance and responded with reciprocal measures, demonstrating it will not bow to unilateral pressure.

President Xi Jinping reiterated at the CELAC summit that “there are no winners in a tariff war,” promoting dialogue and cooperation among nations.

In addition to tariff reductions, Washington lifted export restrictions on semiconductors critical for China’s technological development, especially in artificial intelligence. This decision opens the door for the recovery and advancement of China’s tech industry, strengthening productive sovereignty and innovation in a global context marked by unfair competition and protectionism.

This temporary agreement between the United States and China is a necessary step to mitigate the impact of aggressive trade policies and to promote a fairer and more balanced international trade system.