That's the perspective he's selling, and which the Western liberals have bought quite happily and without questioning it, because his agendas mostly do not interfere with their own. He has been a big donor to all their candidates and their causes. However, if there were, for example, a far-right version of George Soros, utilizing the exact same methods, with the same disdain for the democratic process, sharing these same almost megalomaniacal tendencies (self-admittedly, as Soros himself has acknowledged), I tend to think that these same liberals would see such a man as an arch-villain, a threat to the society, who must be regulated by the civil society.
Sometimes the end game that we seek, is not all that's meaningful, but also the methods that we use in order to arrive at that end. And Soros's methods are highly questionable, regardless of what good he is seemingly doing.
By the way, Soros was the reason why most of those modern Eastern European nutters are in the position they are in the first place (take Hungary's Victor Orban for example), the reason they became "estranged" has more to do with personal disagreements and power struggles. Two people with massive egos, rarely get along. Even so, Soros was like a father to all of these people, he funded their education, he funded their political ascension, he helped them organize their political parties, and he offered key advice for a long time, until the "sons" grew into "men", and became more and more difficult for him to control, especially as he started getting older and less active.