A huge amount of ammunition from the Soviet era in Transnistria at Cobasna would provide Ukraine a lifeline to extend its war-efforts, since NATO is no longer able to provide the country with ammunition, while the Russians are clearly able to produce 'on demand'. Moreover, Transnistria forms a barrier between Ukraine and the country of Moldova, restricting the transportation of supplies for the Ukrainian military, as roads and railroads going through Transnistria cannot be used for this purpose.
Transnistria is a bit like Crimea, where the population opted out of becoming part of a newly formed state after the collapse of the Soviet-Union. A treaty between the Russian Federation and Moldova is still in existence, and serves as a safety guarantee for the people in Transnistria. But under the circumstances it would be difficult for the Russians to come to the rescue of the Transnistrians if Ukraine, and/or Moldova would launch an attack on the enclave, in flagrant violation with the existing treaty, which allows Russia to station their military in the region to protect the people who do not recognise the Moldovan government, and never did.
This week the Russians warned of an impending 'False Flag' operation by Ukraine, meant to suggest that Russia launched an attack from Transnistria on Ukraine, in order to have an excuse to invade the region, and obtain the ammo stored in the country in the proces. Russia produced photographic evidence of Ukrainian troop-formations along the border preparing for such an attack, and they went public to warn the world about a further expansion of the war in the direction of Moldova. As usual the media in our part of the world ignored the warning, and they will tag along with Ukraine when the operation kicks off anyway.
The rather narrow strip of land, isolated, with hostile neighbours, is resembling a 'Berlin'-problem from the early days of the 'Cold War', if the noose is tightened by the EU, NATO and their client states in Eastern Europe. Transnistria has three decommissioned airports which could be returned to the status of hubs using aircraft in an 'airbridge', but if Ukraine would be allowed to target Russian aircraft bound for these airports by their western allies, who desperately want the war to expand, and are not interested in talks before Russia is defeated and on its knees, things would get ugly fast.
To speculate about what might happen if Ukraine and NATO went ahead with such a plan to erase Transnistria from the map is irresponsible, but not as irresponsible as ignoring the objections to such a plan, days after the last treaty meant to prevent a nuclear war was thrown in the dustbin. Clearly I'm not implying that Russia is ready to nuke the living daylight out of us at the very first sign of malicious intent on the border, but it is unlikely that Russia will do absolutely nothing. First of all, they are likely to make sure that the weapons depot at Cobasna will not fall into the wrong hands unharmed. But I would not be surprised if an attack on Odessa would ensue as well.
It has been my assumption from before the start of the 'Special Military Operation' that the Russians would take Odessa, and leave Ukraine 'landlocked', encapsulated by Russian controlled land, which includes Transnistria, unless Ukraine would come to its senses, and struck a deal which would hinge on popular choice of the people in various 'Oblasts', giving them the final say over their own future. Save for the areas already taken, this is still an option, and it is obvious that China is willing and able to broker such a deal as a final settlement of a war which began in 2014 with Victoria 'Fuck the EU' Nuland's 'Regime Change' operation, which went nowhere eventually, and will cost the Ukrainians dearly. All of them. But those who end up holding the tab the collective west will present to them in order to service all these 'loans' we provided, with no ability to pay off their debt, are going to be the real suckers.
Now then, the collective west is saying that a choice for Russia is not merely wrong from a moral point of view, but it is bound to leave a country or region holding the shorter stick economically. Yet, if we take a look at Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, compared to the people living on Crimea over the past eight years, we cannot claim to have provided these people with a ticket to wealth and well-being, right? Did we build them any Kerch Bridges? Desalination plants? And since the collective west is struggling to keep up the appearance of being a powerful ally in this present conflict, you need to be asleep to believe in that dream. Moreover, the morals do not look rock-solid either. Sure, we in the collective west have 'Good Intentions', but our 'Freedom' doesn't come with safety and security. It is, increasingly, a 'Free for All'-lawless society, with ever changing 'Rules', depending on who managed to buy his or her way to the top.
We keep telling ourselves that the Ukrainian people like us, and hate the Russians. In fact, they like us so much, that they intent to stay, even after the war is over, if they were lucky enough to escape the country before the war escalated and Zelensky closed the borders to keep all the potential cannon-fodder in. One town in Holland already decided to build an entire new residential neighbourhood exclusively for people from Ukraine. I question the wisdom of that decision, since building ghetto's for people selected on race or nationality is a recipe for disaster, but we insist that this huge rectangular peg will fit in this tiny round hole, if only you have 'Good Intentions', and use plenty of force.