The acts of Russia in times of war could be indicative of danger during times of peace. If a country is extremely violent during war, it may also be practicing those values in times of peace. If so, it the country could provoke others in times of peace, staring another war.
No, holding history against a country as a total indication of their future is inaccurate. It should certainly be a factor in decisions other countries make regarding Russia's current positions and alliances, however, Russia's actions in the cold war or at other times do not indicate absolutely that there is an imminent threat.
A country has the right to act differently in wartime than they would in peacetime, because war requires different actions to ensure safety, which are different than how a nation would act if there was no war. However, Russia does have other problems related to peacetime danger which should not be ignored, even though they may not be related to wartime acts.
No, the acts of Russia in wartime are not indicative of peacetime danger. Times of war and peace force or allow different degrees of consideration for every action decided upon by a country. To say the acts of Russia in wartime are indicative of peacetime danger, doesn't specify if the actions during wartime are aggressive, or threatening, but still implies that Russia will behave aggressively during times of peace. Behavior of anyone in any circumstance does not guarantee the same behavior in a different set of circumstances.