I would say those are all examples of civilisational collapse, merely because all of those civilisations were replaced by new ones influenced by their predecessors does not mean otherwise. Now, if you say that "Society=/=civilisation" and none of these examples constitute a "civilisation", then the examples you listed might not either - while I'm not an Indologist and won't comment on the Indus Valley civilisation (other than it might not have been Dravidian), I can assure you that pharaonic Egypt was neither as static (they evolved considerably over time and adapted foreign technologies such as chariots and iron weapons and collapse/replacement such as the Old Kingdom occurred) nor as devoid of influence on the present day as you might think. As for the Aztecs, they were not geographically isolated (Aztecs were invaders from the north, not native to the Valley of Mexico) and modern Mexico is as much a continuation of Aztec civilisation as modern China is of Shang civilisation.

Civilisations have risen and fallen in China many times, we cannot speak of China as a continuous civilisation but rather liken it to a series of trees which grew from the stumps of former trees before being cut down in turn. Civilisational collapse usually does bring societal collapse as well, and in some cases like the Greenland Norse the society never comes back at all.

I don't think that many Americans consider Russia is an enemy - the MSM and political establishment might, but the alt-right is often very pro-Russian and there is much lingering Russophilia among the left. It's ironic to see neo-Nazis supporting Russia for reason of their whiteness when Hitler believed them to be untermenschen. Indians have greatly influenced liberal pop-culture (yoga, etc.), but I tihnk on some subconscious level Americans view Indians are racially closer to themselves than Chinese or other Orientals (Koreans and Japanese are widely reviled despite Japan and ROK being US allies).