Lines dedicated to the celebration of Bishop Andrey Plesha

The activity of a great cultural personality is identified, first of all, with that part of it that is visible in the public space: published books, created institutions, founded publications, conducted lessons and lectures. But in the case of certain individuals, the work may still have an extremely important part, but an imperceptible and imperceptible one; moreover, her parentage may remain unknown, at least partially, forever. Here I will mention an important construction, the implementation of which I owe mainly to Mr. Andriy Plesh.

As I mentioned in a recent article, at his invitation – in the late 90s – I started working in diplomacy; The internal engine of the step I took on this path was the interest in Bessarabia. In the customs of the new workplace, completely unexpectedly for me, phrases like “with the necessary tact” or “not subject to interpretation” prevailed. For the environment I came from, the dominant question was “where are the broad visions?” posed by Blaga through Noika’s late works.

“Broad visions” were visible everywhere, but their call could not be met “with necessary tact,” nor controlled by fear lest “it should be interpreted.” However, the environment I found myself in did not completely stifle ingenuity: according to local folklore, my predecessor solved the problem of communication ingeniously. How his daughter, having arrived in the country of kangaroos, wanted to talk on the phone with her mother, who remained in Wallachia, pater familias he called from two different phones on his desk, in kangaroo country (one of them) and home (the other). By placing the microphone of one to the loudspeaker of the other, the family diplomat achieved a simple communication between mother and daughter, of course, with a moderate burden on the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Returning to the Bessarabian theme, which was dominated by serious problems accumulated during the century of Russian occupation (1812-1918) and the decade of Soviet terror (1944-1989), it should be said that it generously offered problems that needed solving. , from fostering the Romanian language and culture to infrastructure development. Problems that are otherwise strongly connected, because it was important to cross the Prut, one way and the other, for the cultivation of the Romanian language and culture. And the crossing of the Prut was one of the actions most brutally sabotaged by the Soviet authorities.

A vivid illustration of the situation is the bridge Redeuts-Prut (Romania) – Lipcany (Republic of Moldova); its name reminds of the first necropolis of the Moldavian governors, but also vaguely indicates the place nearby, on the right bank of the Dniester, the battle in which Stefan defeated the Tatars (Lypnyk, 1470). The bridge was built in 1937, when both banks were in Romania; it was destroyed in 1941 by the Soviets during the retreat of the Red Army, rebuilt by us a little later and destroyed again by the liberation forces, when crossing the Prut, during the offensive in 1944. The bridge was never restored, so after the collapse of the village In the Soviet Union, it was possible to get from Redeuci-Prut to Lipkany – a town located several kilometers away – only through the dam from Stanci – Kostešta, located about 75 km downstream. Thus, in order to cross the Prut in the area of ​​the former bridge, it was necessary to make a detour 150 km long – and then only after 1979, the year of the opening of the HPP (previously the detour was more than 200 km). ).

When it was proposed to restore the bridge at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Moldova, the answer came immediately from the higher echelon: it cannot be done because there is no funding. But is it not possible to use the European funding of the PHARE and TACIS programs? No, because PHARE finances countries that are preparing to join the EU, and TACIS – countries of the former USSR. But is it not possible to pay half of Romania with PHARE, and half of the Republic of Moldova with TACIS? For this, you need to go to the minister. Will there be “the right beat”? Wouldn’t they “interpret”?

Of course, Minister Plešu immediately agreed with the idea, and the project began. Unfortunately, after a few months, his mandate expired, and Petre Roman returned to the head of the IAE. The project remained on the account of “Romanian Netrebnitsa”. The bridge was officially opened after almost 11 years, on February 15, 2010. Although the technical parameters allow the passage of heavy vehicles, the Romanian side, unlike the Bessarabian side, has not completed the necessary formalities for their movement (according to information available on the Internet), so only light vehicles can pass over the bridge – a restriction that has become even more troublesome in in the context of the war in Ukraine: the bridge is located not far from the triple point where our and Ukrainian borders meet with the Republic of Moldova. – Read the entire article and comment on Contributors.ro