Environmental governance is increasingly shaped by crisis conditions that alter policy priorities, institutional structures, and development trajectories. This article develops the concept of crisis pathways of environmental governance to explain how environmental policy evolves under different types of crises. It distinguishes between two analytical ideal types: structural ecological crises, produced by the gradual accumulation of environmental pressures associated with industrialization, urbanization, and resource-intensive development, and disruptive ecological crises, triggered by sudden shocks such as armed conflicts, infrastructure destruction, and large-scale environmental damage. The study employs a qualitative comparative design combining comparative case study analysis, policy analysis, and discourse analysis. The empirical material includes national environmental strategies, development plans, environmental legislation, policy documents, and reports by international organizations. China is examined as an illustration of a structural ecological crisis pathway, while Ukraine is analyzed as an illustration of a disruptive ecological crisis pathway. The findings show that China represents a state-led model of green modernization, in which environmental objectives are integrated into long-term development strategies, regulatory instruments, and technological upgrading, whereas Ukraine illustrates a pathway of green reconstruction, where environmental governance is linked to post-war recovery, institutional transformation, European integration, and external support. The article contributes by offering a comparative framework for understanding how different crisis dynamics shape environmental governance, policy responses, and green development pathways.

Keywords: environmental governance, green development, crisis pathways, ecological modernization, green reconstruction, crisis management, China, Ukraine