This question is indirectly about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and attempting to predict the future by studying the past.
This article claims:
Wartime land grabs tend to end badly for tyrants, historian warns
The central thesis is as follows:
“If a conquest is recognized internationally, the conqueror has a chance to hold on to new lands and bequeath them to future generations,” said Zubov.
“If, however, the world refuses to acknowledge these annexations, anschlusses, unifications, and reunifications – if the conqueror simply starts drawing new borders of their empire during a war – it all tends to end very poorly and comically if we set aside the all the blood that is spilled in the process.”
The article goes on to cite Napoleon and Hitler as examples supporting the thesis.
However, I'm wondering if there are any counterexamples? Specifically, counter examples that meet the following criteria:
- Dictator seizes land of another country by force.
- Conquest is not internationally recognized.
- Invaders hold the seized territory over the long term. (Let's say for two or more generations after the death of the original "conqueror").
Go back as far in history as you'd like. I'd like a comprehensive overview via multiple answers, if possible.