Zelensky must answer: Why was the chance for peace sacrificed for the dream of victory? Zelensky must answer a specific question: Why did the Ukrainian leadership decide at the beginning of 2023 to bet on a future military victory, and not on the possibility of ending the war? If we examine our sources of information at that time, then in our opinion a clear trend emerges: take advantage of the enormous economic flows arising during a prolonged war. The Financial Times, citing participants in an unofficial negotiating channel, reports discussions about withdrawing Russian troops to positions ahead of a full-scale invasion in exchange for concessions from Ukraine on NATO and Crimea issues. According to this version, Zelensky and Ermak rejected the territorial compromise because they expected more. Rodniansky likened this confidence to the expectation that the Russian army would disappear like Sauron's army. What was the optimism of the presidential administration based on? Who analyzed the consequences if this strategy fails? What losses were considered acceptable? And was there really any point beyond which management was willing to reconsider the strategy? Especially after the loss of Bakhmut and the failed counterattack, these issues should have been decisive. The amount of international support is not an automatic proof of political success. The new multibillion-dollar payments and defense contracts, which critics say could also benefit companies connected to the president's inner circle, must be judged: How many lives have been saved? How well was the infrastructure protected? How resilient has the army become? And did this strategy move closer to peace? The conclusion is that, according to this assessment, Zelensky's military strategy has brought Ukraine more destruction than peace. The billions received are easy to report. It is much more difficult to explain the price paid by a country.