across the board. in asia and in europe, there was some initial fright taken by investors particularly because certain bondholders in credit suisse have lost all the value of their investment but by the middle of the trading day most european indices were trading positively again. you can see they re a pretty strong rebound there by the major indices. now one aspect of the deal was that any investor holding additional tier1 bonds, or at1 bonds, in credit suisse will get nothing. that s more than 15 billion euros written off. it spooked the whole at1 bond market which is worth more than 200 billion euros. dan kemp, global is the chief investment officer at morningstar investment management. i asked him why the burning of these bondholders is so controversial. that is the key question,
presence across europe with its forces strengthened across land, air and sea. borisjohnson will urge leaders to dig deeper and increase their military spending. the prime minister described finland and sweden s move tojoin nato as a huge step forward. from madrid, here s our security correspondent frank gardner. well, the last few minutes, the nato summit here in madrid has been addressed virtually by ukraine s president zelensky. he said that his country needs up to 5 billion euros every month in order to sustain its war effort against russia. and that is just a war effort against russia. and that isjust a reminder of war effort against russia. and that is just a reminder of how costly this war is, notjust for russia and ukraine, but also for the west. for now, here in madrid, it has all been about unity. a show of unity for leaders of the world s most powerful military alliance. russia s invasion of ukraine has upended nato s plans and forced it to obtain a new deterrence strategy.
risk of family are displaced. there is high risk of being burned like some of the order risk of being burned like some of the order civilian population that have the order civilian population that have been the order civilian population that have been burned in their houses. there have been burned in their houses. there is have been burned in their houses. there is no have been burned in their houses. there is no guarantee of tomorrow. when there is no guarantee of tomorrow. when it there is no guarantee of tomorrow. when it comes to the stadium for the cup of nations, this is a problem area. the town hosting to initiate, mali, mauritania and gambia but the government is afraid separatist could target the tournament. the threats are could target the tournament. tue: threats are there. could target the tournament. tta: threats are there. other could target the tournament. t“ta: threats are there. other nations will taken care of. the security problem and in this domain.
nations, does it not. explain how that would work and what it would mean. so the way it works is under the obama nuclear deal, the one good thing that the president negotiated at the time, it twas unilateral snapback, the ability of the united states to unilaterally snap back u.n. sanctions against opposition from russia, china, or even europe. so the united states can still move unilaterally to snap back the u.n. sanctions and that s important because it would bring back all the security council resolutions. it would force the europeans to have to comply with these u.n. sanctions and asian countries. and it would isolate iran politically, also would do something that s very important. there s about $5 billion worth of iranian european trade this year. if you could shut down $5 billion worth of trade, you re essentially in the position i suggested earlier where they can t buy essential goods from the germans and italians and the dutch, that they need to run their economy, sophistica
you get rid of 5 billion euros of trade and you re putting iran closer to that position of economic collapse. paul: just so i understand, this unilateral decision, if the united states could call for the snapback, it couldn t be vetoed by china, couldn t be se be vety russia and others. that s correct. it s unilateral against the opposition of those countries. the obama administration wisely understood we d never get chinese and russian support. some are saying the united states can t do that alone because the united states has walked away from the jcpoa. that is not the administration s position in terms of the legal interpretation of that snapback. paul: i guess the question is, if you re talking about maximum pressure, why hasn t the administration done this so far? well, i think the administration is there s an indearcertain nail debate about- internal debate about whether this is the time to impose the