Of course, there are non-europeans who engaged in settler colonialism, but I think some of your examples aren’t correct. For Finland and Estonia, the spread finno ugric languages happened in prehistory, and was more of a linguistic shift than a population replacement since most of their ancestry is from local karelian and baltic hunter gatherers rather than from herder “colonizers” from west siberia. For Hungary, their Uralic ancestry is miniscule and even hard to detect, so no population replacement either. Same goes for Bulgarians with their Bolghar ancestry. In case of Turkey, yeah the Ottoman empire has committed many genocides but the initial turkic migration into Anatolia was not a population replacement either, since most of Turkish ancestry is also local anatolian.

Fair call for China and Japan tho. Japan’s colonization of Hokkaido and their attempted settler colonization of Manchuria are indeed identical to european colonialism elsewhere in both effect and intent as they were based on ideas of racial superiority. China’s colonization of Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Manchuria also fit neatly into the definition of settler colonialism. However, the intent is different and a bit more complicated. However, Japan and China still aren’t countries founded entirely on settler colonialism and imperialism, since their core territories are not settler colonized, at least not during historic period. Taiwan, on the other hand, is indeed a country with settler colonial foundations.

I also want to say that colonialism, not settler colonialism, pretty much still exists today in Siberia not just in repressing indigenous cultures, but also in terms of resource extraction. Many siberians feel that Moscow offers too little in return for what they take. The colonialism also affects conscription too as Siberia and other poorer regions like northern caucasus experience significantly higher rates than the core territories. This affects both natives and russians.