> I mostly don't believe in universal morality, I just try to find my own moral meaning.

I'm trying to steel-man here, but this reads to me as "I am mostly morally unprincipled" in the sense that you do not require consistency in your own moral meaning, whatever that is. Most people probably aren't satisfied with a moral system that's "whatever sterlind feels like today."

Here's a thought experiment: imagine if the powers that be in the West were fully aligned with Russia for whatever reason. As a result they deploy the full force of traditional and social media message control along with all the other measures taken to sway public opinion in favor of Ukraine. In that scenario, do you believe the vast majority of people in the West would be just as enthusiastic about the "special military operation" as they are about Ukrainian resistance today? Do you think your opinion would be different? Why or why not?

I try to follow my own moral principles consistently, though sometimes I fail because I am weak. My principles are mainly empathy, truthfulness, being a good friend and respecting autonomy. Those are what make me feel like I'm doing the right thing.

I don't have an ultimate basis for those principles other than they "feel right." I'm not Kant. I don't think Kant was on the right track. That's what I meant by not believing in absolute morality - I just follow my heart, and admittedly judge others against what my heart says.

Well there were many reports of hospitals being bombed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention Vietnam where there was 3x as many bombs dropped as in whole WW2 on all sides, nuts!