... whether my old thoughts were fine or am I just too rigid in my adherence to them?
It's been a constant for years that I'm a bit astonished by how much I like my really old blog posts. IIRC there's only one which I stealthily pulled from daylight, and the reason wasn't quality. Some others have become pointless because crucial graphics files were lost.
Anyway, my affection with my very old blog posts such as this one may have the two obvious explanations; either they're really good or I just cannot recognize my bad articles as such.
Let's look at the geostrategy blog post on Turkey; I still agree with it 100%. Sometime around the South Ossetia War a troll claimed the war to be evidence that my pick was wrong, but I wasn't able to follow his logic (him being a troll) since Turkey was the neighbouring Western key country in the conflict (which still chose to be less loud than the then-frustrated U.S. during the conflict).
Actually, later events have reinforced my impression that Turkey is a pivotal and increasingly independent country of great importance. (I'm still no fan of its EU membership ambitions, though.)
Let's have a contest in the comments section; let's find a really, really bad old pot. I don't mean "bad" as "I would have thought it was bad back when it was written", for there's almost always dissent. too much noise. I'm rather after learning which blog post aged especially poorly given the later development (maybe this?) or is in clear conflict with a later blog post.
I'll think about a prize later.