LOL, fucking typical liberal. Yes, by all means, use a web dictionary to engage in political analysis. It's totally useful. Why don't you look up Webster's definition of "race" and tell me how useful it is when discussing the actual socio-political system of race in its historical context? Saved you the work: it's worth less than dick.

Imperialism is a complex phenomenon that has been studied extensively and the current best definition we have comes from Lenin's work on the topic. All other definitions of imperialism are exactly what you described, and that definition is useless in distinguishing between imperialism and anti-imperialism. For example, let's say the British invade China and take over Hong Kong. That would be imperialism. But by the definition you have provided, if China uses diplomacy or military force to take back Hong Kong that would also be imperialism. The dictionary definition is useless.

Instead of conflating "extending power", which quite literally every single nation-state in the world does continuously, the shortest definition of imperialism that we have arrived at is the monopoly stage of capitalism. The analysis is pretty thorough on this topic and no one in the last century has managed to identify significant flaws in the analysis that would require a new definition. And you would know this if you actually engaged in this topic instead of just doing shit like pointing at dictionary definitions as though you're making an argument and then accusing people who disagree with you of whatever it is they accuse you of.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is quite literally the predicted response of the US extending their power and influence through diplomacy and military force. The awareness that NATO establishing nuclear capabilities in Ukraine was a red line for Russian national security was not only understood by all of the Western powers but was openly talked about. When Gorbachev is talking with Clinton about the dismantling of the USSR and the need for Russian security, Clinton assures Gorbachev that NATO won't expand but then immediately engages in talks internally to build a strategy to get NATO into Ukraine. It was well known for 30 years that Russia would eventually be forced to launch an attack if NATO kept expanding.

What is that NATO expansion if not the extension of power and influence through diplomacy and military force? (you know, like bombing the last socialist country in Europe with a defensive alliance dropping depleted uranium bombs on developed cities under the pretext of the world's first ever "humanitarian" war) If that's not imperialism to you, but Russia finally pushing back is, that is fucking textbook cognitive dissonance.

So even if we take your garbage definition which is completely useless for understanding the world (but maybe useful for 7th graders who need to understand a word in a novel they have to read for a book report), you're still the one exhibiting the cognitive dissonance here.