> hasn't Russia proved to be an unpredictable and dangerous partner?

IMVHO absolutely no. It prove to be a reliable and stable partner: they even keep up pumping gas, shipping carbon etc to the EU while under (partial) sanctions. They never close their door, actually the try many time to give EU the olive branch and the EU is forced by USA and UK to refuse, against EU interests...

So no, USA and UK gov prove to be unreliable partners, they want power and they do all the dirty tricks they can to grab and keep it, causing immense amount of suffering and dumping their waste on partner: 2008 subprime crisis? Dumped in EU. Overthrown MENA region dictatorship they once create with resulting mass immigration and civil wars? Against dumped in EU. Afghanistan obvious debacle after they create the talibans to fight URSS? They do not even advise up front their NATO EU partner before they live.

Of course, anyone do their own interest, that's perfectly normal, WWII was very well used by the USA in primis but was an European war at first so we can only blame ourselves for it, however so far lesson must be learnt: USA and UK gov. act for their own interest against their own citizens interest and against anyone else interests. Russian so far have obviously followed their own interests but not harming their partner. Our propaganda try to sell the Ukrainian war as something made by the Russian by surprise but if you just dig the press a very little bit you'll discover that's a complete lie, like Saddam mass-destruction weapons lie. The Ukrainian war initiate before 2014 while NATO expansion finance and arm nazi's in eastern Europe to keep it's expansion they promise they'll never do at Yalta conference after WWII. They form nazi's militias in Ukraine persecuting Russian-speaking population to a point of the Euromaidan genocide. Russians actually IMVHO have made a huge mistake: at that time instead of offering "assistance" and weapons to Russian-speaking Ukrainian they should have impromptu invading the entire Ukraine blitzkrieg-style (a super-expensive but doable risky move) stating a thing: we are here to eradicate nazi's, anyone trying to stop us declare us war, a nuclear war. That's will be risky of course, BUT effective, because at that time NATO haven't had enough propaganda on it's side to justify anything, NATO troops are well in the mud in Afghanistan and Iraq and public opinion can't be convinced that Russia is on the wrong side. They invade to stop a genocide with their official troops, not mercenary crocks, they march with their flag formally, nothing under the wood and with international press aside. A thing they do not learn from us.

Now they just can't keep the situation up so what they should have done in a risky move before they have done slowly and methodically now. But now NATO have had much more time to work on it's own public opinion depicting Russians ad the badass guys and have much more armed Ukrainian nazi's that in the meantime are now in control ALSO on regular Ukrainian army and the outcome of such slow move is a mess.

Honestly if I'm at Putin place I'll have a far harder line: a public discourse at United Nations: NATO thief, the empire of lie (cfr actual Russian propaganda) have to stop now or face a nuclear holocaust and all NATO countries Citizens should decide if they are Democratic and so, people that decide, or subject and so people that obey to they oppressors in chief against their own interest. With a bit of condiments: mass ballistic exercise around all possible borders. However I'm a Democrat witch means I think people can decide if trained and pushed to, Putin is a dictator so he think as NATO countries think that Citizens are not Citizens but flock of sheep to be pastured as the powerful wish. And that's war the real error: the entire '900 teach that yes, if trained to be sheep citizens unfortunately evolve as sheep, easily mastered by propaganda. But that's not "by nature" they also can be trained to be Citizens, for some it still not work, but for a big enough number of them it does work. Unfortunately most élites reason like that https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

As a European honestly for individuals I see no issues in doing business with USA or UK citizens, they tend to be even more honest than some European in the mean. However at State level for me NATO must be ended, EU must ask Russia for a EAEU partnership with the western EU led by France (of course with a government, not a neoliberal dictatorship that commit high treason and is still in power) and the eastern EU led by Russia. That would be a balanced partnership that benefit EU, Russia, AND ALSO USA and UK because avoiding Russia-China partnership means avoid WWIII witch will happen soon in the present scenario. Because in the present scenario NATO gift China pushing Russia in their arm witch means gift China of hi-tech military gears and immense natural resources in an age of scarcity. China NEED a war to nourish it's own people, but they can't fight UK or USA, without Russia, they can with in few years.