Tracking conflicts through social media is a messy business. If you’ve spent any time on X (formerly Twitter) during the Russia-Ukraine war or the escalation in the Middle East, you’ve probably seen the name "War Monitor" pop up. But things got weird when "War Monitor 3" started appearing in feeds.
People want fast updates. They want to know where the missiles are landing before the BBC or CNN even gets a camera crew on the ground. This demand created a vacuum, and into that vacuum stepped a handful of anonymous accounts that basically changed how we consume war.
War Monitor—and its various iterations like War Monitor 3—became a central, if highly controversial, part of this "New Elite" on Twitter.
The Rise of the Anonymous Monitor
The original @WarMonitors account exploded in popularity during the early days of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't a traditional news outlet. There were no editors, no "about us" page, and certainly no press credentials. It was just an account that posted rapid-fire updates, maps, and alleged combat footage.
By late 2023, research from the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public identified @WarMonitors as one of the most influential accounts on the entire platform. During the first few days of the Israel-Hamas conflict, it was raking in over 100 million views. That is more traffic than many legacy media organizations see in a month.
But being big doesn't mean being right. Or even being neutral.
The account quickly became a lightning rod. Why? Because while it was fast, it was also accused of being a "misinformation superspreader." It didn't help that Elon Musk himself had, at one point, recommended the account (along with @sentdefender) as a good source for following the war in real-time. He later deleted that recommendation after the account was flagged for making antisemitic comments and spreading debunked claims.
✨ Don't miss: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
Why War Monitor 3?
The "3" in War Monitor 3 is basically the internet's version of a cat having nine lives. When you run an account that pushes the boundaries of platform safety rules—or gets targeted by mass reporting from opposing political factions—you tend to get suspended.
Usually, when a major OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) account gets nuked, several things happen:
- The "Backup" Strategy: The creator already has a secondary or tertiary handle ready to go.
- The Impostors: Dozens of fake accounts pop up using the same logo and name to siphon off followers.
- The Rebrand: The account returns under a slightly different name to avoid the automated ban-evasion filters.
War Monitor 3 Twitter became a search term because users were desperately trying to find the "real" backup after the primary was locked or shadowbanned. It represents the cat-and-mouse game between anonymous war bloggers and the platform's moderation algorithms.
Is It Reliable? Honestly, Probably Not.
Here is the thing about accounts like War Monitor 3. They aren't doing "intelligence" in the way a professional analyst does. They are aggregators. They scour Telegram channels (mostly Russian or Middle Eastern ones), grab a video, and slap a caption on it.
The goal is engagement. On the new X, engagement equals money.
NewsGuard, a group that tracks online trust, found that a massive chunk of the most viral misinformation about global conflicts came from verified "blue check" accounts exactly like this one. Because these accounts are incentivized to be first, they rarely wait for verification. If a Telegram post says a hospital was hit, they post it. If it turns out it was a stray firework? They might delete it, but by then, 5 million people have already seen the "news."
🔗 Read more: Percentage of Women That Voted for Trump: What Really Happened
There is also the "bias" problem. Critics have frequently pointed out that the War Monitor ecosystem often leans into specific narratives. In some weeks, they might seem pro-Ukrainian; in others, they are accused of amplifying Kremlin talking points or extremist rhetoric. It’s a chaotic mix that makes them a dangerous source for anyone looking for objective truth.
The Problem With Community Notes
Elon Musk's big solution to this was Community Notes. The idea is that the "crowd" will fact-check the lies.
It works... sort of.
The problem is speed. A post from an account like War Monitor 3 can go viral and reach 2 million people in thirty minutes. A Community Note might not appear for six hours. By the time the correction is attached, the damage is done. The lie has already circled the globe while the truth is still putting its boots on.
Plus, studies have shown that corrections often only reach a tiny fraction of the people who saw the original fake post. It’s an uphill battle.
How to Follow War News Without Getting Fooled
If you find yourself following War Monitor 3 or similar accounts, you have to change how you read your feed. It’s not "news." It’s "raw data," and most of it is probably corrupted.
💡 You might also like: What Category Was Harvey? The Surprising Truth Behind the Number
- Check the Source: Did they link to a primary source, or is it just a "Reported:" caption? If there’s no link, be skeptical.
- Look for Geolocation: Real OSINT experts (like those at Bellingcat) provide coordinates and satellite imagery comparisons. They don't just say "City X is falling." They show you why they think so.
- Cross-Reference: If War Monitor 3 is the only one reporting something for more than an hour, it’s likely fake. Even in a war zone, big events get picked up by multiple sources quickly.
- Watch the Language: Emotional, loaded language ("The enemy is being slaughtered," "Zionist regime," "Puppet state") is a dead giveaway for a propaganda account, not an information account.
The reality is that War Monitor 3 is a symptom of a broken information ecosystem. We want the "truth" immediately, but in war, the truth is usually the last thing to arrive.
If you are looking for the account today, be careful. Many handles using that name are currently "engagement farming"—posting old videos from 2014 or even video game footage from ARMA 3 and claiming it’s live footage.
Your best bet for staying informed is to follow a mix of ground-level reporters with established track records and professional analysts who explain the why instead of just the what. Don't let a blue checkmark and a cool-sounding handle convince you that you're getting the inside scoop. You're usually just getting the latest rumor.
Actionable Next Steps
To avoid being misled by accounts like War Monitor 3, start by curating a "List" on X that includes verified journalists from multiple sides of the conflict. Compare their reports against the anonymous aggregators. If an anonymous account makes a massive claim that isn't backed up by a reputable journalist on the ground within two hours, unfollow it. You'll find your feed becomes a lot less stressful and a lot more accurate.