Dead Kids, Silent Tweets: The Cost of Trump’s Jelly-Made Peace Plan

Trump’s refusal to sanction Russia proves his so-called peace plan is nothing but a Kremlin-approved script written in American ink.

Trump’s tariffs came down like a hailstorm—but somehow, not a single drop touched Russia. Funny, isn’t it? While China, Europe, and Mexico got roasted on the grill of the so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs, Vladimir Putin was left sipping tea in the rain of blood and fire raining down on Ukraine. Did anybody paying attention notice this? Putin launched missiles at playgrounds, while Trump launched tariffs at everyone except the man turning Ukraine into a cemetery. It’s not just a double standard—it’s a diplomatic joke written in jelly.

Let me say it clearly: Putin has continued to kill women, children, and innocent civilians in Ukraine. A few days ago, 18 people were killed in a Russian missile attack on Kryvyi Rih—nine of them were kids. Another 56 were injured. A restaurant and a playground were turned into rubble. The scene looked like a horror movie set. Meanwhile, Trump's response? Not a single word of condemnation. Not a whisper of anger. Not even a lukewarm tweet. Nothing. The silence is as loud as the explosion that tore through those Ukrainian streets.

You’d think that a man who calls himself the master negotiator would have at least pretended to be outraged. But no. His version of peace is basically Putin’s playbook—just with American flair. Trump’s “peace deal” for Ukraine is less of a strategy and more of a PR stunt. It’s flimsy, wobbly, spineless—a plan written in jelly, wobbling in the sun while children’s bodies lie in the dirt. There is nothing strong or respectable about that. It’s cowardly. It’s shameful. And it’s dangerous.

Trump has gone out of his way to avoid punishing Putin. While Russia continues its war crimes, the so-called “Dealmaker-in-Chief” is playing footsie with a tyrant. Where are the sanctions? Where are the consequences? The excuse is that U.S.-Russia trade is already low. That’s like saying you won’t jail a murderer because he already lost his job. The logic is twisted, the priorities are broken, and the people of Ukraine are paying the price in blood.

Even Zelenskyy, a man under daily attack, called out the weak response from the U.S. embassy. When Russia bombed a playground and killed children, the U.S. reaction didn’t even name Russia. Zelenskyy asked, “Are you afraid to say the word Russian?” And I ask the same of Trump: Are you afraid to say Putin’s name? Or is your tongue too tied from all the secret deals and handshake diplomacy?

Trump’s team says they're "waiting to see" if Moscow is serious about peace. Really? While they wait, more drones drop, more missiles strike, and more lives are lost. Russia has already violated the partial ceasefire deal that the U.S. helped negotiate. They bombed Kharkiv. They struck an energy facility in Kherson. They hit residential areas. Every Russian promise ends with a missile. But Trump still thinks this war can be ended with a hug and a handshake.

Putin sent his investment envoy Dmitriev to Washington last week. Why? To peddle the same empty words wrapped in lies. And what did Trump’s people do? They smiled and asked him to “take a message back to Moscow.” What message? That America is watching, taking notes, and doing nothing? That’s not diplomacy—that’s delusion.

Trump says if Russia launches a big offensive, then we’ll know they’re not serious about peace. But what about the bombs already falling? What about the children already dead? What more does he need—an RSVP from hell?

Let me make it plain: Trump’s peace plan is not a peace plan. It’s a political stunt. It’s a lie wrapped in the American flag. A real peace plan demands pressure. A real peace plan calls out the criminal and protects the victim. A real peace plan doesn’t shake hands with a warlord while ignoring the blood on his palms.

It gets worse. While Russia keeps firing at Ukraine’s energy facilities, Trump keeps selling the dream that he can “end the war in 24 hours.” That’s not policy. That’s a used-car salesman pitch, and the car is already on fire. His peace deal has no spine, no strength, no strategy. It’s a circus act, and the ringmaster is asleep.

And now, as Congress begins talking about new sanctions, Trump plays the role of the middleman. He warns buyers of Russian oil that they might face tariffs. But even that comes with a wink and a shrug. China and India—the biggest buyers—aren’t shaking. They know the game. They know that Trump talks loud but punishes selectively. If the goal is to stop Russia’s war machine, then someone should remind Trump that sanctions aren’t optional—they’re essential.

Let’s not forget history. Putin’s war in Ukraine began in 2014 with Crimea. In 2022, it turned into a full-scale invasion. Since then, thousands have died. Millions have been displaced. Cities have been destroyed. And through it all, Trump has treated Putin like a poker buddy, not a war criminal. He even praised him as “savvy” and “smart” at the start of the invasion. That wasn’t just bad judgment—it was an insult to every family hiding in basements while bombs fell from the sky.

There’s an old proverb: “He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon.” Trump not only supped with Putin—he seems to have handed him the menu. His refusal to punish Russia with tariffs is not just a policy choice—it’s a betrayal of justice, decency, and global stability.

Zelenskyy is right. We must call a spade a spade. We must call Russia what it is: a terrorist state waging war on the innocent. We must put real pressure on Putin. And if Trump won’t do it, then the American people must ask why. Why is he afraid of punishing the man responsible for so much pain?

Because right now, it looks like Trump’s peace plan is less about peace and more about pleasing Putin. And if that’s the case, we might as well call it what it is: Putin’s Plan, made in America, endorsed by the “Jellymaker-in-Chief.”

No Wallet, No Woman: Stop Dating If You’re Broke

A man relying on his dad’s credit card shouldn’t be pursuing women—he should be pursuing a job and a clue. The truth is, modern women aren’t heartless—they’re just tired of dating boys who come with dreams but no direction, ambition but no bank account.

When broke men talk about love, it’s like trying to fill a gas tank with pocket lint—ambitious but pointless. Let’s be honest here: women don’t like broke guys. That’s not a dig, it’s a fact, a social law as old as romance itself. If a guy can’t afford to pay for the first date with his girlfriend, or if he’s swiping his dad’s or mom’s credit card to impress her at Applebee’s, then he shouldn’t be in a relationship. It’s that simple. No money? No honey.

I’ve seen guys strut around like peacocks on payday, yet collapse like wet tissue paper when the bill arrives. Let’s get one thing straight: women aren’t asking for Bentleys or yachts; they’re asking you not to pay for their sushi with your mother’s Discover card. And if that’s too much to ask, you’ve got no business being in the dating game. Love isn’t a welfare program. No woman signed up to be your unpaid therapist, financial coach, and personal sponsor.

This idea that women don’t like broke men isn’t new, and it’s not even controversial in the real world—just on the internet where broke men gather like mosquitoes to whine about gold diggers. But go back as far as the Bible, and you’ll see the trend. Ruth didn’t pick the poorest man in the field—she married Boaz, the landowner. Women have always gravitated toward men who provide security, stability, and sanity. And in modern times, that translates into a stable income, a working debit card, and preferably no roommates named “mom” and “dad.”

There’s a Nigerian proverb that says, “No matter how sweet love is, it cannot be used to cook soup.” In other words, feelings don’t pay bills. We live in a world where adult responsibilities matter. You can’t love someone properly when you’re dodging debt collectors and hoping your date orders from the appetizer menu. A man who’s financially unstable is not ready for a relationship. He’s barely ready for himself.

Let’s bring in some facts, not fantasies. Surveys from the last couple years show that over 50% of women say financial stability is the number one trait they look for in a partner. Another study found that nearly one in three millennials and Gen Zers have broken up with someone over financial stress. These are not bougie women with unrealistic expectations—they are working women who don’t want to carry another grown adult on their back like a backpack full of unpaid bills.

And don’t get it twisted. This isn’t about materialism; it’s about maturity. If you can’t hold down a job, stick to a budget, or even afford your own car insurance, you’re not ready to carry the weight of another person’s emotional needs. Relationships cost money—dates, gifts, emergencies, the whole package. Trying to build a relationship while you’re flat broke is like trying to build a house during a hurricane with no tools and a prayer. It’s doomed from the start.

Some men think it’s romantic to say, “I don’t have money, but I have love.” That’s not romantic. That’s reckless. Love is not a substitute for rent. If you love her, the least you can do is not drag her into your financial mess. Imagine a guy proposing to a woman and saying, “Will you marry me—and help me consolidate my student loans?” That’s not a proposal. That’s a cry for help.

And don’t come with the exception stories. Yes, some broke guys end up with women who believed in their potential. But those stories are rare, like lottery winners. For every broke man who became a millionaire, there are thousands who stayed broke and dragged someone down with them. Michelle Obama didn’t fall in love with a broke Barack because she loved struggle; she saw vision, purpose, and potential backed up with action. The difference is, Barack had ambition and direction, not just vibes and excuses.

It’s crazy how so many broke men expect loyalty from women they can’t even afford to take to Wendy’s. You want her to stick around while you “figure it out”? That’s not a girlfriend, that’s a babysitter. And even babysitters get paid. The bare minimum for being in a relationship is being able to stand on your own two feet financially. If your idea of a good date is splitting a $10 pizza and sitting in your mom’s basement watching free YouTube videos, stay single. That’s not a relationship, that’s a recession.

And let’s talk about emotional consequences. Financial stress is one of the leading causes of arguments and breakups. Broke men bring more than empty wallets—they bring anxiety, stress, and drama. A relationship built on broke bones can't stand. It's not romantic, it's tragic. Women don’t want to play counselor every night because their man overdrew his checking account buying Jordans.

Now don’t get me wrong—nobody’s saying a man has to be a millionaire. But he should at least be able to carry his own weight. If you need your parents to fund your dating life, maybe they should go on the date instead. If you can't afford gas to pick her up, why are you picking women up at all? You can’t pay for Netflix but you’re out here trying to chill. That’s delusional.

The truth is, the dating market is a competition, and broke men are entering with flip-flops and hope. Hope doesn’t pay for brunch. Hope doesn’t keep the lights on. Hope is not a financial plan. If you want a girlfriend, get a job first. If you want love, learn how to budget. Until then, your only real relationship should be with your hustle.

So to all the broke guys out there thinking love will save them: wake up. This ain’t a fairy tale. Women want a partner, not a project. And if you can’t even afford your own dates, then no—you can’t afford a girlfriend. Period. Try loving yourself first. It’s free, and it won’t call you out for forgetting your wallet again.

Because if women are gold diggers, then broke men must be buried treasure—hidden, unclaimed, and completely worthless in the market.