Like today with Ukraine. NATO's primary goal was to protect member nations territorial integrity against Russian incursion. Who here still believes NATO will do that, even if Russia just annexes the entirety of Ukraine and Poland ?
The big issue people are having here is that it's an instance of clearly the government not being in control. What use is democracy if the government isn't in control ? What use is NATO if it doesn't respond to territorial incursions ?
There's a big difference between annexing (parts of, or even all of) Ukraine (which isn't a NATO member), and Poland (which is not only in NATO, but also the EU)
UA is not in NATO, this alone renders your "notion" a little misleading at best. Shouldn't NATO been dissolved after the Warshaw Pact ended? Who is really the "bad guy" in this complicated matter? Is the corrupt oligopolistic Russia(that was literaly taken apart 2 decades ago) the real aggressor?[1] But since this is not about UA I'll leave it here.
I do agree with your 3rd paragraph though. We're experiencing a play on democracy - a oppressive global regime with its equivalent of kings, aristocracy, vassals, the dirt in between and slavery, packed in golden toilet paper.. with a lot of democracy-stickers on it..
If everyone thought the pound was going to be just fine, they'd happily buy his sterling and nothing would have happened. But the expectation was that the pound was overvalued and would soon nosedive. So when Soros' sales began to apply downward pressure to the price, everyone bandwagoned because that was what they were going to do anyway.