I believe it's important to acknowledge a distinction between, as you say, politically dominating a region with an intention of expanding the home country and depleting a region of its wealth, exporting it away while imposing an administration with no willingness to co-operate with local population other than for the purposes of wealth extraction.
Pretty much all invasions start with taking over resources and the longer they are part of your empire, it will become more integrated it becomes. And in a time of kingship and emperors most regions never got series political representation.
And its also a limited history of colonialism to claim its only wealth extraction above and beyond what other empires would do.
> while imposing an administration with no willingness to co-operate with local population
If anything Europeans because of their limited population had more intensive to do so.
The British take over of much of India was literally a vastly majority Indian affair. The war was fought by Indian troops, supplied by Indian merchants and farmers, it was financed by taking loans from Indian bankers. The amount of British people involved were almost vanishingly small given the size of India.
Did Indians have more control over involvement over India then Greeks did over Greece in the Ottoman empire?
I don't think you can make any generalization that European invasions of other countries were uniquely destructive or extractive compared to world history. There are certainty cases like Kind Leopold's regime in Congo but we can't reduce 600 years of European history to that.
I believe it's important to acknowledge a distinction between, as you say, politically dominating a region with an intention of expanding the home country and depleting a region of its wealth, exporting it away while imposing an administration with no willingness to co-operate with local population other than for the purposes of wealth extraction.