choff wrote:Conquer means defeat the military of the country and physically occupy with your own. Replace the leadership with a puppet government. The Russians have made incursions into neighboring states with specific objectives in mind related to their own security. Crimea has a long history in relation to Russia, the two breakaway provinces have predominantly Russian populations.
From your definition, it appears that Chechnya, The Crimea, and Eastern Ukraine meet the mark when considering "defeat the military of the country and physically occupy with your own", and "<replacing> the leadership with
a puppet government." Especially when you consider the soviet/Russian way of war, in that
a battlefield defeat is only one means of "defeat" an opposing force can meet.
Other nations, like Belarus, Trans-Dniester, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Dagestan, and even Syria (surely on the path) may also meet
this criteria of yours, if you consider that the entry of troops can be without combat. Again,
this is based in the soviet/Russian theories on the conduct of war & conflict. These theories include use of deniable military force such as proxies or unmarked/unclaimed Russian units. It also includes co-opting local forces via corruption, coercion, or other means.
An incursion is defined by 'not staying'.
This could represented with Georgia, however it is arguable given the status of Abkhazia, and South Osseita in particular.
So in short, your own definition undermines your premise that the RFN has not 'conquered' anyone. In fact, if you ask them, they market (especially internally) that they have.
Additionally, please clarify what you mean by "Russian".
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)