Multiple wrong assumptions and one-sided storytelling, but yeah, neither India nor China is completely innocent or honest.
To counter a few -
If not unilateral, then why bring 10,000+ troops, tanks and armor in Ladakh? Measly Indian patrols consisting of no more than 50 troops can be countered by local outpost strength.
Chinese deployment forced us to mobilize a proportionate number of troops and armor.
Why is PLA bringing more troops strange? Keep in mind this is during and after stand off initiated. India has much more that 10,000+ very close to this region.
It's pretty clear that Indian and Chinese patrols clash whenever one side decides to conduct patrols of the remaining disputed sections. I suspect it is in at least China's interest that these clashes end, if not also India's seeing as these clashes have the potential of getting out of hand. If there is no chance that either side can contact because the entire disputed area becomes a buffer, there is no potential for violence and accidental or intentional confrontation. However either side suspects the other, this is objectively going to be good in respect to de-escalating the situation.
I would say that Indian deployment forced China to mobilise and support with more troops and equipment. Of course it can also be said that Indian build up was also in response to China's building a road on dispute but China worries that it was also done in the hopes of securing the disputed area and eventually controlling it.
Well China declares the whole Arunachal Pradesh (Indian State, under our control since 1947, no Chinese influence), multiple sectors of Himachal Pradesh (again under our control, natives are Indians with no han-feature or culture) and Ladakh (again our culture and heritage) as "disputed".
No "actual Indian territory" ? Who defines that? Chinese govt ?
PLA did retreat because IA had then good in South Pangong Tso, and also Galwan. Other sectors, PLA do have an advantage (currently), so why would they retreat from those sectors?
PLA "retreated" under command of China not India and they didn't retreat because they were pushed out or defeated. Clearly not since they stayed the whole time. They retreated after India agreed it would also retreat and stay behind F3. The whole point PLA occupied F4 to F8 was to let India know it needs to stop with military plans and to force India to agree to not stepping beyond F3 anymore. This means no more contact and no chance for violence. Once the objectives were achieved, PLA could disengage in return for India acting according to those agreements which they did. If China's aim was to capture that F4 to F8 territory, they held it for nearly a year. Why would they negotiate if the aim was to capture? Why talk with India about agreements? They already won.
IA had good in south and galwan? Well not really. IA was on India's side of Black Top and Helmet Top. It is very commonly shared fake news from India that India captured Chinese territory in the south for exchange. India intruded in for a whole week or so and they left. The most further east position they had after that was sitting well on India's own side of Black Top and Helmet Top.
PLA doesn't have advantage in any sector. Gogra HS is a claim from China. It is probably only being held to force India into agreeing to vacate disputed land. There is nothing more to this. PLA will disengage just like on Pangong once India agrees to certain terms just like on Pangong. The delay is possibly because India misinterpreted PLA and Chinese intentions and assumed Pangong disengagement would include all PLA forward positions to act accordingly in exchange for India moving back to F3 and agreeing to buffer - not patrolling F3 to F8.
PLA has no advantage because India is within disputed land. If India refuses to vacate disputed land, China has to stay otherwise India more easily control the remaining stuff.
If India vacates, PLA is probably going to vacate. I believe this because Pangong sets the precedent and there is little real reason for China to act differently with regards to the rest of the dispute and standoff.
There is a Indian proverb that translates to, "The one who have stick, controls the buffalo", and in LAC term, it translates to, the one who have power, controls the "disputed" territory.
So, either side bargaining for 20% or 100%, has to show resolve and power. Unfortunately, neither side enjoys absolute supremacy and guarantee of victory.
I think China wanted to demonstrate that India's movements and build up will be met with responses - PLA occupying F4 to F8 in order to force a rethink from Indian side. The remaining 20% on Ladakh that's been disputed since the end of the 1962 war, needs to be demarcated. China wants this more than India simply because demarcating the line means India loses Aksai Chin for good and India probably will lose a bit more of it's claim within the 20% because there is little chance China will agree to the line being the blue line. China will most likely allow it to be set between the LAC and the blue line where China actually control up to. Maybe even up to the blue line only if it sees India China relations becoming positive and as a show of goodwill. Otherwise either LAC or somewhere between LAC and blue line.
Regarding creating a buffer territory, China is steadily encroaching and pushing the "buffer" or "no-man's land" towards Indian side since last 60 years. So if China really wants peace and safety for Aksai Chin or Tibet, they should negotiate a treaty with India converting LAC into demarcated international boundary, rather than playing property dispute wars, and especially not provoke a military conflict by bringing thousands of troops.
Yes China wants this. India does not!
Think about it. India wants Aksai Chin and continues to formally claim it. While AC is controlled by China, India still wants it.
If India demarcated the line, they lose Aksai Chin. Therefore India does not want to demarcate... while it is China that does because demarcating with bilateral agreement, means China improves the security of Aksai Chin and its sovereignty. Bringing thousands of troops when it looks like India might attack is normal behaviour. In fact I'm surprised PLA brought so little. Most of India's military is on the northern side. This area is on the edge of China. Of course China will re-enforce the PLA there when the tensions started rising. You can't call this China being aggressive when there are 1,000,000 Indian troops nearby and tens of thousands at Ladakh while China interpreted the situation as India wanting to salami slice the remaining 20% and control what it can get.
