Given the scenario described, there are several possible developments. Here is one interpretation based on general dynamics of international politics and state action:

1. Years 1-2: Rising Tensions and International Awareness

The more powerful group, Group A, seeks to cement its control over the territory. It begins to implement policies and actions that favor its members, leading to increased tension and conflict with the less powerful group, Group B. As these tensions rise, international media and human rights groups start to take notice, bringing global attention to the situation.

2. Years 3-4: Diplomatic Efforts and Sanctions

In response to international pressure, Group A may attempt to legitimize its claim through diplomatic means, such as negotiations, referendums, or legal actions. However, these efforts might be seen as biased or unfair by Group B and its international supporters, leading to further escalation. The international community may impose economic sanctions or diplomatic isolation on Group A, aiming to compel it to respect the rights and claims of Group B.

3. Years 5-6: Escalation and Possible Armed Conflict

If diplomatic efforts fail and Group A continues to assert its dominance, the situation could escalate into an armed conflict. Group B, feeling cornered and desperate, may resort to violent resistance. The international community might intervene, either directly (through peacekeeping forces) or indirectly (by supporting Group B with resources).

4. Years 7-8: Peace Talks and Mediation

With the ongoing conflict causing significant human suffering and regional instability, there will be increased pressure for a peaceful resolution. International mediators may step in to facilitate peace talks. These negotiations could result in a variety of outcomes, from the partitioning of the territory, to granting increased autonomy to Group B, or even the integration of both groups under a power-sharing agreement.

5. Years 9-10: Implementation and Rebuilding

Assuming a peace agreement is reached, the final years of the decade will likely be spent implementing the terms of the agreement and rebuilding the territory. The success of these efforts will depend on many factors, including the willingness of both groups to compromise, the extent of international support, and the ability to prevent a resurgence of violence.

Please note that this is a simplified projection and the actual course of events could take many different forms, influenced by numerous factors including cultural nuances, historical context, geographic considerations, and the actions of external players.

The support of powerful international players for Group A could significantly change the dynamics of the situation. Here's how the scenario might unfold:

1. Years 1-2: Consolidation of Power

With the backing of powerful international allies, Group A is able to more effectively assert its dominance over the territory. This could involve increased political control, economic development favoring Group A, and possibly even forced displacement or repression of Group B. The lack of international sanctions allows Group A to operate with fewer constraints.

2. Years 3-4: Increased Tensions and Isolation of Group B

As Group A consolidates power, tensions escalate. However, the international support for Group A makes it difficult for Group B to gain international sympathy or aid. Group B becomes more isolated, both domestically and internationally.

3. Years 5-6: Potential Internal Conflict and Humanitarian Crisis

Without external support or means for peaceful resolution, Group B might resort to violence or civil disobedience out of desperation. A humanitarian crisis could ensue, especially if Group A responds with force. However, international intervention remains unlikely given the support Group A enjoys from powerful nations.

4. Years 7-8: Stalemate and Continued Conflict

The conflict could reach a stalemate, with Group B unable to overthrow Group A's dominance, but Group A unable to completely suppress the resistance. This could lead to a protracted conflict, causing significant human suffering and economic damage.

5. Years 9-10: Possible Resolution

Eventually, the powerful nations supporting Group A might push for a resolution to stabilize the situation. This could involve some concessions to Group B, though likely on terms favorable to Group A. Alternatively, if public opinion in the supporting nations turns against Group A due to the humanitarian crisis, these countries might withdraw their support, leading to a realignment of power dynamics.

Again, this is a simplified and hypothetical progression. The actual development would depend on numerous factors, including the specifics of the international support, the resilience and strategies of Group B, and the extent of the humanitarian crisis.

If Group B resorts to large-scale terrorism in response to perceived injustices or desperation, it would significantly escalate the conflict and potentially provoke strong reactions from Group A and the international community. Here are some possible scenarios:

1. Increased Security Measures: Group A might increase security protocols, conduct mass surveillance, and restrict civil liberties in a bid to prevent further attacks. Such measures could disproportionately impact Group B, intensifying the cycle of violence and resentment.

2. Military Retaliation: If the terrorist acts are severe, Group A may respond with military force. This could mean intensifying existing operations or launching new ones aimed at dismantling the infrastructure of the terrorist organization within Group B.

3. Political Maneuvering: Group A could use the situation to justify its dominance and rally international support. By framing Group B as a security threat, Group A may gain additional resources and justification for more repressive measures.

4. Negotiations: Alternatively, Group A might see the escalation as a sign that the current approach isn't working and opt for negotiations. This would be more likely if there's significant international pressure and if Group A believes that Group B's demands can be accommodated without major loss.

5. Addressing Root Causes: If Group A recognizes that the terrorism is driven by desperation and perceived injustices, it may attempt to address the root causes. This could involve granting more rights or resources to Group B, or implementing reforms to promote fairness and integration.

The exact response would depend on a variety of factors, including the scale of the terrorism, the international reaction, the ideology of Group A, and the specific demands of Group B. Importantly, resorting to terrorism often leads to a cycle of violence and reprisals that escalates the conflict and makes a peaceful resolution more difficult.

The likelihood of Group A resorting to a full-scale occupation and asserting complete control over Group B depends on several factors:

1. Perceived Threat: If Group A perceives Group B as a significant threat, either due to violent resistance, international alignment, or ideological differences, it might be more inclined to assert full control to neutralize this threat.

2. International Support: If Group A has strong international backing, it might feel emboldened to take more aggressive actions without fear of international reprisal or sanctions.

3. Resource Availability: If the disputed territory is rich in resources or holds strategic significance, Group A could be more motivated to secure full control.

4. Ethnic, Religious, or Ideological Differences: Deep-seated differences, particularly if accompanied by dehumanizing rhetoric or historical animosities, could drive Group A to suppress Group B completely.

5. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Group A would also consider the costs of such an action. Full-scale occupation and control can be expensive and difficult to maintain. It could lead to international isolation, economic sanctions, or a protracted insurgency.

Given these factors, it's difficult to predict the likelihood without specific details about Group A and B, their relationship, the nature of the disputed territory, and the stance of the international community. However, it's important to note that full-scale occupation and control often lead to serious human rights abuses, long-term conflict, and significant destabilization. It is generally viewed as a last resort and is widely condemned by the international community.