Chiang Kai Shek was very sensitive to the control of the army. He did not trust any military commander.Hmm. That’s not the account I read. The US advised Chiang against committing troops into cities and railway junctures. They knew that he would be thereby ceding the initiative to the Communists in the country side and have his urban garrisons surrounded and picked off one by one.
Chiang was notoriously intolerant of US advisors and had general Stilwell removed due to incorrigible differences in the application of military strategy.
I doubt Zelensky has anywhere near that much clout.
When he commanded to resist the Japanese invasion in Shanghai, he had already carried out such an act to win international attention.
This is a long answer. Pay attention to the first paragraph,he succinctly expounded Chiang Kai Shek's political considerations.
When KMT gradually lost its advantages, China Lobby and China Bloc asked KMT to show more victories to ensure continued assistance.In principle, the United States will not allow Soviet influence to fully control Northeast China.So although Chiang Kai Shek lost the initiative in Northeast China, he was always reluctant to withdraw his troops.
Zelensky is much more incompetent by comparison.He had no way to control the army, and Chiang Kai Shek at least had control of American aid.The Azov Battalion can receive direct military assistance from the United States,the boss of these fascist military organizations is not the Ukrainian government.
On the first day of the war, it was pointed out that Ukraine must withdraw its eastern troops immediately, otherwise their withdrawal route would be cut off by the Russian army quickly.
But the Ukrainians chose to stay there and do nothing.Now, like Chiang Kai Shek, Zelensky has lost most of his army and territory, but he is still blathering about his intention to counter attack.