In response to your first question: absolutely not. The nature of Russia's relationship with the rest of the great powers of Europe has been overtly negative multiple times throughout history and I think I will demonstrate that has been unique to Russia-- i.e. Russia has always been considered an "outsider."

You rightly point out that the Bolshevik (or October) Revolution, subsequent Russian Civil War, and ultimate formation of the Soviet Union was a period of time when Russia stylized itself an enemy of the west. However, it is important that we not forget that both the United States and Great Britain sent armed expeditionary forces to aid the White armies (who either supported the results of the February Revolution-- that is, the Provisional Government-- or were classical hard-line loyalists to the imperial family), and actively participated in the killing of Red Army soldiers. Thus, who stylized whom as their enemy is really a far more complicated question than it might appear on the surface-- which I think begins to answer your second question.

The American expedition has come to be known as the "Polar Bear Expedition" and is largely forgotten about or ignored when discussing east-west relations outside of historically minded circles. The University of Michigan provides this brief overview of the various engagements in which the Polar Bear Expedition (who were largely Michigan boys good at fighting in the snow) was involved. That source makes the claim that, "[the reason for sending the expedition was] never made clear," which I think is a bit disingenuous considering Winston Churchill-- who was serving as First Lord of the Admiralty of the United Kingdom at the time of the intervention-- said in 1949:

"I think the day will come when it will be recognized without doubt, not only on one side of the House, but throughout the civilized world, that the strangling of Bolshevism at its birth would have been an untold blessing to the human race." ^([)^(1)^(])

Another instance where the classical great powers (in this case France and Britain) militarily intervened together against Russia was during the Crimean War (1853-1856). To give you an idea of the circumstances which precipitated the war, consider this excerpt:

"In 1740, the government of the Ottoman Empire promised the French government the right to be the sovereign power that controlled the Holy Land Christians. However, in 1757 the Ottoman Turks also guaranteed the rights of the Greeks to control the Holy Land. The Ottomans continued to give away the same rights, finally promising Russia the right to protect the Christians in the territory controlled by the Ottoman Turks. The Russians, on the other hand, planned to use this issue to weaken the Ottoman Empire, possibly gaining land from them. Also, more French influence in the Ottoman Empire would not facilitate the Russian takeover of Constantinople, a goal of Russia." William Stikes, Crimean War: The Diplomatic March to War to the Destruction of the Turks at Sinope ^([)^(2)^(])

Ostensibly, Russian (Orthodox Christian) and French (Catholic) interests in the Holy Land came to loggerheads, Russia invaded the Ottoman Empire, and alongside Britain, the now-defunct Kingdom of Sardinia, as well as various Caucasus nations with a penchant for revolt against their Russian overlords, the coalition invaded Russia in kind. The result was about a million dead (largely from causes other than fighting), the famous charge of the light brigade, and ultimately, the Congress and Treaty of Paris which mostly re-shifted newly drawn borders to their pre-war locations. Interesting to note here, the Victoria Cross (VC), the highest of British military honors, is to this day purportedly cast from canon captured during the Siege of Sevastopol (Crimea). I think you'll agree, not the friendliest of relations between east and west. Considering their ultimate alliance against the Sick Man of Europe in World War I a little more than 50 years later, it's hard to believe that "Ottoman sovereignty" (and not Russian ascension) was the cause of the invasion.

Another famous instance of major east-west conflict which I think is worth mentioning (if only briefly) is the Napoleonic Period. This period featured Britain allying with Russia (among others) against France, France allying with Russia-- or at least the latter participating in Napoleon's Continental System, and ultimately Alexandr I marching all the way to the Champs-Élysées. This shows that the western great powers haven't always been unilaterally opposed to Russia. Just a little counterpoint there to demonstrate that Russia has been seated at the table as well, but only really when it suited one or more western great powers.

Going even further back than that, when the Swedish Empire was at the height of its power, Charles XII (Sweden) launched an ill-fated invasion of Russia which precipitated the Great Northern War (1700–1721) with the support of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, George I of Great Britain, and again, various peoples that detested the overlordship of the Russian Empire (specifically early Ukrainian Cossacks, Moldovians, and Wallachians). The British involvement here shows that, once again, European great powers styled themselves as antagonists of Russia in response to a perceived assent of its power-- this time under Pyotor I (the Great).

Voltaire describes European attitudes towards Russia and Russians in his book The History of Charles XII, King of Sweden (1731) which I think is a nice way to wrap up this answer that I believe unarguably shows that, no, the Cold War was absolutely not the first time that Russia was stylized (or stylized herself) as an enemy of the west or an outsider among the European powers (emphasis mine):

"Russia occupies the whole of Northern Asia and Europe, and from the frontiers of China extends 1,500 leagues to the borders of Poland and Sweden. Yet the existence of this immense country was not even realized by Europe before the time of the Czar Peter. The Russians were less civilized than the Mexicans at the time of their discovery by Cortez; born the slaves of masters as barbarous as themselves, they were sunk deep in ignorance, and unacquainted with the arts and sciences, and so insensible of their use that they had no industry. An old law, held sacred among them, forbade them, on pain of death, to leave their own country without the permission of their Patriarch. Yet this law, avowedly enacted to prevent them from realizing their state of bondage, was agreeable to a people who, in the depths of their ignorance and misery, disdained all commerce with foreign nations." (pp. 21-22)^([)^(3)^(])

*Made some edits for spelling, syntax, and a small add-on