TL&DR: To put it simply, I am looking for a good example (as modern and well-known as possible) of an invader who was very upfront about the evil, criminal character of his invasion from its beginning and didn't even try to justify it by anything other than a land grab for his nation.
It has long been trendy for nation leaders to come up with some sort of ethical justification when starting a military invasion to a neighboring country. As the most recent example, Putin's declaration of his "special military operation" in Ukraine referred to sufferings of the people living in Luhansk and Donetsk and called Ukraine Russia's historical land. Even Hitler tried to justify his invasion of Poland by setting up Gleiwitz incident and referring to Poland's unwillingness "to settle the Corridor question in a reasonable way" and "increased terror and pressure against our German compatriots."
And we all know that the real motivation is often a mere land grab. Even though Putin said in his declaration of his "special military operation," "It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory," he has already officially annexed Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson into Russia since that declaration. And Hitler had arranged with the USSR a plan to divide Poland.
This makes me wonder whether there has ever been a leader who bluntly declared a land grab to be the sole or main war goal without bothering to come up with any moral justification of historical, ethnical, religious, ideological, or any other nature. That is, a leader whose only justification to start a war was like, "We are stronger than them and are going to grab their land just because we can. The more land we have the better."
So, I am looking for an example of such a leader, and here are my criteria:
At the start of the invasion, the leader made a declaration or speech in which a land grab was declared to be the sole or main war goal.
No historical, ethnical, religious, or any other factors were really used by the leader to ethically justify the invasion and, ideally, could even be plausibly used by anyone to that end.
The aggressor and victim states were neighboring countries sharing a land border and recognizing each other and were at more or less the same level of technological development. This means that colonial wars and conquests similar to the conquest of Siberia by Russia do not qualify, and neither do wars to re-establish control over a breakaway territory.
A full-out military conflict ensued following the border crossing by the invading army.
The invasion wasn't part of a larger war involving other countries, such as World War II, or at least wasn't such at the beginning.
I would prefer examples of wars as modern and large-scale as possible.