The only threat a NATO Ukraine represents to russia is the threat of not being able to invade Ukraine. It's the threat of having to abandon its imperialistic, colonialist, and genocidal intentions.
You're always falling into the same trap of believing that only Americans have an agency, and everyone else only acts if the Americans tell them to act.
It's just not imaginable that they'd take the initiative on their own to protest against a leader that has been in power since 1996 (except for 2001-2009), who has increased her country's debt by 238%, and who decided to reestablish a discriminatory practice that had been abolished in 2018 after, already, popular demonstrations. It's not like Hasina has had to face criticism before for things like rigged elections the last couple of times... It's not like there hadn't been scandals about government projects such as the Padma Bridge...
No, if people are angry about corruption, cronyism, and incompetence, it is only because of the Americans! Without the Americans, people would just be happy to be led by corrupt morons as it would be regarded as the natural of things.
Now I get that you're upset because India viewed Hasina as an ally in the region and doesn't know what to expect from whatever the next government of Bangladesh will be. But there were signs that things weren't working out well in Bangladesh. You should have seen them, and prepared for them. India supposedly has a "Look East" foreign policy. Maybe it should be a "Watch East" policy instead... Pay attention!
That's a new one. America's motives for invading Iraq were numerous and not well thought-out, but russia did not figure among them. Remember, we're talking about 2002 when that decision was taken. Russia was in the G8, Putin went to Washington, Bush went to Moscow, they created the NATO-Russia Summit, they organized a "U.S.-Russia Commercial Energy Summit", Russia was helping America in Afghanistan, the Open Skies Treaty had just entered into force, things were going well between them back then.
So that's what they did nothing against russia in Africa. Makes sense.
Yeah, you're just turning things into a story. A story with only one protagonist, who is also simultaneously the antagonist. There's a grand plan going on, which is unerringly followed across the decades and centuries. It's typical conspiracy theory sophistry; everything has to be attributed to a single cause because that's a simpler storytelling that looking at what actually happens and trying to figure out why. It's always easier to blame one group. Typically it's the Jews, or the Freemasons, or anyone else who is suspected of being smarter and better connected than the average guy. It's always because of Them.
And, more importantly, it's never the fault of anyone else. Sheikh Hasina didn't lose power because she absolutely wanted to reestablish an impopular quota policy that is basically tantamount to concentrating money and political power into her clan at the expense of the rest of the population; no, the people would have been happy with money and political power being concentrated into the hands of a ruling clan that has bankrupted the country if the CIA didn't, somehow, manage to convince them that autocracy and corruption are actually bad.
Just like in Ukraine, remember, only the Americans can convince people that corruption and autocracy are bad! Naturally, everyone loves to be ruled by corrupt autocrat! They enjoy it! Man, if only the CIA agent known as "Mohandas Karamchand G." didn't succeed in his CIA-backed coup, you'd still be British! Because people have no agency and only act when the Americans make them act.
