The idea of opening transit from Russia to Georgia through South Ossetia has sparked debates on social media.

The opening of transit from Russia to Georgia will help the development of tourism in South Ossetia, the emergence of new hotels, restaurants, and banks, as well as the restoration of connections between relatives, noted some commentators on social media. Another part of users stated that Georgia does not need a new route, and its launch without the official consent of Tbilisi is impossible.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", law enforcement in South Ossetia regularly detain residents of Georgia on charges of border violations. For instance, in September 2025, in the Znaur district of South Ossetia (near the village of Zemo Khviti in the Gori municipality of Georgia), law enforcement detained a citizen of Georgia, who, according to them, illegally crossed the border. The man stated that he wanted to visit relatives in the village of Isak-kau.

Commentators debated the conditions for opening transit

The blogger's post about the idea of opening transit from Russia to Georgia through South Ossetia was published on July 17 on the "Caucasian Knot" Facebook page*. In the comments, there were calls to open the road as well as demands to abandon the transit until the territorial issue is resolved.

"I personally support opening the road. I personally support peace and friendship," wrote Ioseb Nadirashvili.

"Without restoring Georgia's territorial integrity, there will be neither transit nor prospects," stated Gig Gablaia.

Supporters of opening the road pointed to families whose members live on different sides of the border. Other commentators stated that relatives can meet even now.

"You write: we do not recognize, we do not recognize. But have you thought about how many relatives live on both sides and cannot see each other because of this policy? We are simple people who lived together for years, communicated, and did not divide into nations. What should we do – not see each other at all? Let's live simply in friendship, as before, and treat each other with respect," called Nino Karsidze.

"What relatives are you talking about not seeing? What nonsense? My neighbor is married to an Ossetian, and every year she, her children, and grandchildren all come to Batumi to see relatives," noted Iveta Kuchuxidze.

"Politicians are going crazy, ordinary people are suffering," stated Deca Manilova.

Some users linked the opening of transit to the development of tourism and business. Opponents of the idea doubted the economic necessity of a new route for Georgia.

"Ossetia would be a very interesting tourist destination. Hotels, restaurants, and banks would open. All the inconveniences related to receiving and sending money would become a thing of the past," believes Vitaly Dekanoidze.

"If the Russian Federation fulfills its obligations under this agreement, the opening of a transit corridor from the Roki Tunnel towards the rest of Georgia and vice versa is generally a good idea. I can only welcome this," stated Dato Gogishvili.

"We are neither cold nor hungry without this transit," stated in a comment Zaza Geradze.

Commentators also debated whose consent is necessary for opening transit and where the border posts should be located.

"Without the official consent of Tbilisi and the placement of Georgian checkpoints on the legal border, the opening of this route is impossible. For Georgia, this is a matter of sovereignty, so any unilateral initiatives from Tskhinvali or Moscow will remain unrealized," stated user Nero Nero.

"As long as they do not accept that Samachablo and Abkhazia are Georgia, according to international law, this is excluded. How is it possible to establish borders or organize transit in unrecognized republics?" asked Kakha Sudja.

"The relocation of the post from Zarama to the southern outskirts depends only on the desire of South Ossetia. After all, there are agreements that can serve as a basis for relocation," pointed out Alan Iron.

Borderization has affected thousands of residents of the border area

In July 2019, human rights defenders presented a report in which they named borderization the main factor of anti-Russian protests in Georgia. By "borderization," the authors mean the unilateral arrangement of the border separating Georgia from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The report was based on interviews with residents of the "Georgian side" of the new border, as well as with people who had come from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

First and foremost, the consequences of borderization affected farmers, for whom agriculture is the main source of income. According to human rights defenders, many families had cultivated the land for decades, after which Russian law enforcement presented a 1982 map and claimed that these plots were not in Georgia, but in South Ossetia. Hundreds of families faced this problem.

Other consequences of borderization mentioned by the authors of the report include a sharp reduction in cross-border trade and the severing of family ties (in many villages located near the new border, Georgians and Ossetians entered into mixed marriages – note from "Caucasian Knot"). In addition, residents lost the opportunity to visit churches where several generations of their families had prayed, and cemeteries that ended up "on the other side." The number of people affected by these processes is in the thousands.

According to the Georgian side, hundreds of people are detained annually in South Ossetia for attempting to "illegally" visit relatives, attend church, or visit cemeteries. According to international law norms, restrictions on the movement of citizens must be justified, enshrined in legislation, and proportionate to the goals set. However, in the situation with South Ossetia, civilians are effectively deprived of their means of livelihood.

At the Geneva talks involving Georgia, Russia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, which took place in 2008 and 2010, the Georgian side proposed to compile lists of farmers whose land plots ended up beyond the border line and allow them to visit South Ossetia in a simplified manner. The Ossetian delegation rejected this proposal.