Trauma-Bonding
Some relationships do not last because they are healthy, beautiful, or mutually beneficial. They last because people have learned to endure them. Because they feel responsible. Because they feel guilty for questioning them. In psychology, this is called trauma-bonding. The relationship survives because the individual breaks.
The longer and more closely one observes the current political situation in Germany, Europe, and Western societies more broadly, the harder it becomes to ignore the parallels. Not because the state is an enemy, but because the relationship between the state and younger generations increasingly resembles a one-sided bond. The state expects loyalty. The state defines duties clearly. The state tightly controls decision-making power and responsibility, limits participation, and in particularly dark moments dismisses young people as naïve or uninformed.
This is not an outcry. Not yet. For now, it is a quiet, growing unease.
Young people in Germany are not politically apathetic – quite the opposite. Doubt and skepticism in this regard is simply wrong, the Shell Youth Studies of recent years work perfectly as proof. They consistently show that young people are engaged, informed, and opinionated. At the same time, they document rising insecurity, growing anxiety about the future, and declining trust in the political system’s ability to solve problems.
Crises are no longer exceptions; they are background noise. Fragility in corporate and public balance sheets, geopolitical tensions, climate change, demographic decline – all of this unfolds simultaneously, deeply interconnected. And in each case, the message directed at younger generations is the same: things are getting tighter. You must take responsibility.
No matter the crisis, the issue is not responsibility itself, nor the pressure that supposedly overwhelms a “soft” or “spoiled” youth. The issue is that responsibility keeps accumulating while real influence remains limited. And this limitation is not self-imposed. Young people carry increasing financial, moral, and societal burdens without the feeling of actually sitting at the wheel.
[Consider a young prospect at a relegation-threatened professional football club. In the decisive match, he makes his debut in the 82nd minute with his team trailing 0–1. Without a win, the club will be relegated. He has been professionally trained at a youth academy and is considered tactically intelligent and technically gifted. His lack of fear allows him to play freely even under pressure. The moment he steps onto the pitch, instructions rain down from all sides—teammates, coaches, millions of spectators—making focus difficult. Still, in the 87th minute, he scores the equalizer. Hope returns. Younger generations are this player. The outcome remains open and football is a team sport that cannot be won or lost by just one person alone.]
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine – back to reality. It has made debates about rearmament and the reintroduction of conscription unavoidable. These debates illustrate the tension between state and youth with particular clarity. From a security perspective, conscription is justified by a changed global order. Historically, it is legitimized by reference to earlier generations. Morally, it is framed as responsibility toward the common good and shared values.
What receives far less attention are the structural causes behind this debate. The poor condition of the German armed forces did not arise by accident. For years, it has been documented in reports by the Bundeswehr, the Federal Court of Auditors, and internal assessments. It is the result of long-term political decisions: austerity, the outsourcing of security, and a belief in lasting stability.
Now that the world has changed, conscription is being demanded – ironically by the very generations that shaped defense policy over the past decades.
Political decisions, especially in democracies, are well justified most of the time. Yet they can still rest on misjudgments. In hindsight, European security policy clearly does. What is certain, however, is that this misjudgment was not made by today’s younger generations. Adjusting course may be necessary, but outsourcing that adjustment to one segment of society is unfair. Outsourcing it to a segment that did not cause the problem in the first place might be interpreted as an open provocation – a challenge.
When confronted with such a challenge, there are two options: you fight, or you go away.
Young people are willing to face challenges, even severe ones, but their motivations may differ from those of older generations. According to the European Parliament Youth Survey 2024, young people identify far less primarily with national identity than older cohorts, often feeling equally European or locally rooted. Similar findings appear in multiple studies by the Pew Research Center, showing that younger people tie loyalty less to nation, tradition, or origin.
This can be judged, criticized, or romanticized, but it cannot be ignored. Loyalty cannot be legislated – certainly not retroactively. When individuals are challenged by a system toward which they feel little loyalty, the decision becomes easier: you go away.
Replace weapons with money, the debate about conscription becomes a debate about pensions. Officially, the system rests on intergenerational solidarity. In practice, it increasingly represents a structural burden on those who are working.
Data from Germany’s Federal Statistical Office shows a sharply rising old-age dependency ratio by 2040, with fewer workers financing more retirees. The OECD’s Pensions at a Glance identifies Germany as one of the countries where the implicit burden on future generations is particularly high.
The problem is not solidarity. The problem is that this “contract” is never renegotiated. A contract that was concluded under conditions that no longer exist today. A contract that was agreed upon by parties who are no longer involved today. Contributions rise, subsidies increase, reforms are postponed. For many young people, this does not feel like fairness. It feels like inevitability.
[Imagine a grocery store operating on the principle that each customer pays for the previous customer’s shopping. Youth would be a single household. Ahead of them, an eight-person family completes its weekly purchase. After them, no one enters. The store closes in two minutes and goes on vacation for three weeks tomorrow. Solidarity without perspective becomes obligation. Obligation without perspective creates distance, and distance erodes loyalty – to the trauma-bonding partner.]
Few issues shape the relationship between the state and younger generations as profoundly as climate change. The IPCC has made clear for years that long-term consequences will disproportionately affect future generations, and unsurprisingly concern among young people is high, as confirmed by the Shell Youth Studies.
At the same time, many experience a political reality in which ambitious targets are announced but inconsistently implemented. Structural decisions are delayed, while moral appeals focus on individual behavior.
The result is a paradox: high responsibility paired with little power. Those affected do not decide; those who decide are less affected. This asymmetry is toxic – not only for climate policy, but for trust in political institutions more broadly.
This dynamic is further reinforced by the unequal distribution of wealth and political influence. Studies by the Bundesbank and analyses by the German Institute for Economic Research show that wealth in Germany is heavily concentrated by age. Property ownership, capital income, and financial security increase significantly over the life cycle.
Politically, this imbalance is mirrored. Older generations vote more, organize better, and are more strongly represented. Younger generations carry less demographic weight and therefore less influence. This is not a moral accusation but a structural fact. Still, it has consequences. When long-term decisions are predominantly made by those who will barely bear their consequences, legitimacy erodes.
The real danger is not revolt but disengagement.
Data from the World Values Survey and the European Values Study show that when loyalty is continuously demanded without perceived fairness, trust in institutions declines. In our historical moment, this is unlikely to result in revolutions, which require strong identification with state and nation. Instead, it manifests as withdrawal, inner resignation, adaptation without identification. This process is quiet and therefore extremely dangerous. Once protest disappears, it is already too late.
Perhaps for the first time in the history of states, they are not threatened by revolutions, but by their absence.
An enthusiastic youth would be desirable, but not essential. What the state truly needs is a youth that feels connected. The state needs a younger generation and should act accordingly. At a time when states, facing declining loyalty among younger cohorts, should be making greater efforts to earn trust, many appear to be doing the opposite. Western societies are struggling through multiple crises simultaneously. If they lose their youth, they lose their future battles.
This text is not an attack on the state. It is a sober indication that one of its core relationships has shifted from trust toward trauma-bonding.
Every state should be extremely careful not to turn its younger generation against itself, not for emotional reasons, but for rational ones.
The truth is that young people are aware of what they have and are grateful for it. That gratitude has sustained this increasingly toxic relationship. But gratitude has limits, and trauma-bonding always ends – especially when it rests on gratitude that has been stretched too far.
Sources
Shell Deutschland Holding – Shell Jugendstudie 2021, 2023, https://www.shell.de/ueber-uns/shell-jugendstudie.html
European Parliament – Youth Survey 2024, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/eurobarometer/youth-survey
Pew Research Center – National Identity & Global Citizenship in Europe, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/
World Values Survey, https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org
European Values Study, https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis) – Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung / Altenquotient, https://www.destatis.de
OECD – Pensions at a Glance, https://www.oecd.org/pensions/pensions-at-a-glance/
IPCC – Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
Deutscher Bundestag – Wehrbericht der Bundeswehr, https://www.bundestag.de/wehrbeauftragte
Bundesrechnungshof – Berichte zur Bundeswehr, https://www.bundesrechnungshof.de
Deutsche Bundesbank – Panel on Household Finances (PHF), https://www.bundesbank.de
Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW) – Vermögensverteilung, https://www.diw.de
OECD – Trust in Government, https://www.oecd.org/gov/trust-in-government/