As for Tibet, repeating an earlier comment:
Tibet was under control of the Qing Dynasty (i.e. China) until its end in 1912. From 1912-1950, Tibet (due to its remoteness) acted as an de facto independent region, despite Western legal precedent stating it was still under the control of Beijing.
When attempting to get de jure independence from China in 1951, China asserted control over the region.
So sort of, but not really.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
edit: my bad, I missed the "unwilling nation" part of the parent content
Smaller states, though, yes. But not major powers. This may have more to do with shifting priorities for major powers, than with anything else.
So I agree you’re right, but I also hope you agree that Ukraine is very different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Extension_o...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
(Although now too late)
Again the original point is that it was never an annexation, but even if it were, there was minimal protest and discontent in 1997.
From 1912-1950, Tibet (due to its remoteness) acted as an de facto independent region, despite Western legal precedent stating it was still under the control of Beijing.
When attempting to get de jure independence from China in 1951, China asserted control over the region.
So sort of, but not really.
Everywhere Russia has taken to date was already a separatist region, but I'm really racking my brain to think of times when a country 'just simply annexed' another area by force since the fall of the Raj.