A lot of chest thumpings and PR China stronk!
Let me sum up what you wrote.
i. DPRK exists - PR China successful. But the objective of the Chinese offensives was to evict the Americans/South Koreans. Farthest you got was Busan.
VERDICT- tactical stalemate, strategic failure.
ii. The US did not 'lose' the Vietnam war - Nope. They lost it. Tactically they were winning when on the ground. But it counts as a decisive strategic defeat - especially when RoV fell.
iii. Vietnam war - PR China wanted Vietnam to adhere to its diktats. Vietnam refused. PR China invaded and got grounded down. Casualties and damage was done to both sides, that alone can't count as a victory/defeat. In the end, PR China did not meet its objectives (of pressuring Vietnam to do PR China's bidding). They don't toe your line to this day.
VERDICT - tactical stalemate, Pyrrhic local tactical victory, operational failure, strategic failure
iv. PRC wanted/WANTS to rule all of the subcontinent of China. But is unable to evict/bring RoC into the fold entirely. Diplomatically PRC has done well in this case. But militarily, PRC has not been successful in finishing the job.
VERDICT: Tactical and operational victory, Partial Strategic victory
v (additional). PR Chinese invasion of India,62
Major success in NEFA, ground to halt in Ladakh near Chusul, heavy losses to both sides, 'voluntary withdrawal'. But India, like Vietnam, refused to cooperate even in future. India pushed to Soviet arms, Indian military buildup. PR China starts 'cultural' revolutions.
VERDICT: Tactical, operational victory. Strategic defeat.
In short, it is clear that the PR Chinese actually only had some measure of long term strategic victory when fighting against fellow Chinese. I admit, you are probably good in Civil war, but against other nations - don't you think that even the recent history shows that you should not try our misadventures? Even against small nations (Bhutan/Nepal/Mongolia/Vietnam/Philippines)?