This study traces the paradigm evolution of international relations theory from rationalism to the "emotional turn," highlighting the trend in EU studies to break through the traditional perception of the EU as a "technocratic actor" and to examine the role of emotion in threat perception and identity construction. Taking the 2022 Ukraine crisis as an example, it analyzes the superposition effect of cognitive-normative attributes and emotional mobilization in the EU's emotional response, as well as its dual functions of consensus strengthening and decision-making acceleration. Based on this, it proposes an analytical framework of "emotional trigger—emotional narrative—policy action," laying the foundation for subsequent research paths exploring how emotion shapes the EU's crisis response policy practices.

I. Literature Review and Analytical Framework

This section systematically reviews the "emotional turn" in international relations research and its application in EU foreign policy studies, and proposes the analytical framework of this paper. At the level of international relations theory, constructivism views emotion as a structural element embedded in institutions and identity, with cognitive construction and political integration functions; political psychology reveals the embeddedness of emotion as an adaptive mechanism in information screening and decision-making judgment; realism, though handling emotion in implicit ways, actually relies on threat perception shaped by fear and anxiety in its security dilemma logic; rational choice theory has gradually incorporated emotion into its analytical framework, regarding it as an important mechanism with signaling and preference-ranking functions. These theories collectively break through the traditional cognition of "emotion-rationality dichotomy," indicating that rationality is essentially a bounded rational process unfolding within the value framework provided by emotion.

In the field of EU foreign policy research, the role of emotion manifests through dual pathways of "empowerment" and "constraint." Collective grief and sense of responsibility formed by historical memory constitute key emotional resources for the EU, strengthening moral bonds among member states through institutionalized "emotional rules"; collective emotional resonance in crisis situations can weaken institutional inertia and promote policy breakthroughs, while emotional misalignment constrains policy coordination. Emotion is also embedded in the policy process through three levels—individual, group, and institutional—and provides cognitive and moral guidance for policy prioritization during normative conflicts, participating in shaping the EU's international role perception.

This study defines emotion as an independent analytical variable with dual attributes of rationality and irrationality, and proposes four core propositions: emotion is a form of interest with substantive content; the non-material interests carried by emotion constitute an important driving force for policy action; emotional resonance is a key condition for international norms to acquire effectiveness; and emotion and rationality exhibit a complementary relationship in decision-making. Based on this, this paper constructs an analytical framework of "emotional trigger—emotional narrative—policy action," aiming to identify the key factors that stimulated the EU's collective emotion in the Ukraine crisis, examine the generative logic of emotional narratives, and analyze their influence paths on policy behavior. This framework introduces dynamic theoretical mechanisms, emphasizing that external shocks trigger emotional responses, which are integrated through discourse to form narratives, and through threat redefinition, identity reshaping, and responsibility generation, promote cognitive adjustment and ultimately transform into policy action; it also attends to the feedback effects of policy outcomes, explaining how emotion transforms into a structural variable that continuously acts upon the policy cycle. The advantages of this framework lie in compensating for the insufficient mediating mechanisms between emotion and policy outcomes, fitting the behavioral characteristics of the EU as a "normative power," and integrating rational and emotional factors to overcome the dichotomous paradigm.

II. Emotional Triggers and Mobilization Strategies in the EU's Response to the Ukraine Crisis

This section examines the triggering factors of the EU's emotional response in the Ukraine crisis and the strategic mobilization by political elites. Regarding triggering mechanisms, the crisis simultaneously touched upon the EU's ontological security and normative identity, forming three emotional dimensions: first, Russia's "special military operation" was defined as a challenge to the international order, arousing "moral indignation," prompting the EU-Russia relationship to shift from limited cooperation to comprehensive confrontation, though wartime solidarity also weakened the EU's accountability for democratic backsliding among member states; second, historical trauma and geographical proximity shaped "existential fear," driving the EU's transformation from a "peace project" to a "geopolitical actor," with the securitization trend compressing traditional mediation space; third, Ukraine's resistance narrative and moral image strengthened the EU's sense of "solidarity," though "selective sympathy" also exposed the double standards in its refugee policy. Regarding mobilization strategies, EU political elites constructed a dual mechanism distinguishing internal and external dimensions: externally, they employed fear and moral anger, reshaping the oppositional narrative toward Russia through "existential threat" and "norm violator" discourses, providing legitimacy for defense transformation and sanctions policies; internally, they activated sympathy and solidarity, incorporating Ukraine into the "European family" framework, and achieving the policy transformation of emotional resonance through institutional arrangements such as the Temporary Protection Directive. This strategic mechanism organically combined external threat perception with internal identity construction, making emotion a key governance resource for integrating member state will and driving collective action.

III. The Mechanism of EU Emotional Narrative Construction

This section studies the operational mechanism through which the EU transformed emotional mobilization into institutionalized policies via its multi-level governance system during the Ukraine crisis. At the actor dimension, the European Commission assumed the role of "institutional translator," converting emotional consensus into legal provisions and technical standards, specifically manifested in activating the Temporary Protection Directive to guarantee refugee rights, embedding the "REPowerEU" plan to promote energy decoupling, and establishing the "Ukraine Facility" to institutionalize fiscal commitments; the European Council, as the supreme decision-making hub, completed the upgrading of emotional energy into collective strategic will by promoting the normalization of moral indignation through multiple rounds of sanctions, utilizing the European Peace Facility to break the taboo on military aid, and granting Ukraine candidate country status to solidify identity recognition; the European Parliament, leveraging its agenda-setting power to shape moral high ground, amplified anger through radical resolutions to exert moral pressure on other institutions, and embedded solidarity emotion into public space through symbolic political practices. The three institutions formed a cooperative mechanism: the Commission was responsible for legal translation, the Council completed strategic upgrading, and the Parliament maintained moral sentiment. At the policy function dimension, emotional narratives reinforced security urgency through fear, constructed moral boundaries through anger, and strengthened community identity through sympathy, forming synergistic effects to reshape the policy environment, compress space for divergence, and enhance decision-making efficiency, even breaking through existing rule constraints. This mechanism enabled the EU to achieve a short-term logical transformation from economic self-interest to value mobilization, but its long-term effectiveness depends on whether emotional consensus can be transformed into stable institutional arrangements.

IV. How Emotional Narratives Shaped EU Policy Behavior in Response to the Ukraine Crisis

This section examines how emotional narratives shaped EU policy behavior in response to the Ukraine crisis, noting that fear, moral indignation, and sympathy—the three emotions—did not exist in isolation but were deeply integrated into issues such as energy independence, defense autonomy, and aid to Ukraine against Russia, collectively reshaping the EU's policy priorities and tool selection. In the energy and economic domain, the "energy weaponization" discourse defined energy dependence as "structural vulnerability," with fear narratives driving the policy logic from efficiency-oriented to "security-first" and "de-risking" strategies, prompting the introduction of documents such as the REPowerEU Plan, and achieving a fundamental reshaping of energy issues. In Russia policy, the moral indignation narrative of "violation of international law" endowed sanctions with the moral legitimacy of punishing "norm violators," driving the escalation of sanctions and promoting defense adjustments such as the "Strategic Compass," but also compressing space for diplomatic compromise. In EU-Ukraine relations, the interweaving of humanitarian disaster imagery and "European community of values" discourse redefined Ukraine as "part of Europe," promoting institutionalized arrangements such as the European Peace Facility and the Ukraine Facility, and shifting support for Ukraine from short-term crisis response to medium- and long-term strategic commitment. This section also reveals the progressive process of emotional narratives over time: from crisis shock stimulating emotional resonance, through political discourse integration into normalized emotional narratives, and finally through institutionalized operation transforming into concrete policy practice, completing the transformation from social emotion to political narrative to policy action.

V. Conclusion

This section explores the dual role of emotion in EU foreign policy: on the one hand, emotion has become embedded in cognitive, normative, and institutional frameworks, transformed into a policy driving force, reducing internal coordination costs through unified moral judgment, strengthening the "normative power" identity, enhancing policy continuity and institutional resilience, and promoting its transformation toward a geopolitical role; on the other hand, there are obvious limitations to emotion-driven approaches, including risks of moral judgment simplification, spillover costs of economic strategy, reemergence of divergence due to "emotional fatigue," and constraints of timeliness on policy sustainability. It ultimately points out that the long-term maintenance of EU strategic autonomy and geopolitical role depends on whether emotional consensus can be transformed into stable institutional capacity, and whether a balancing mechanism can be established between emotional mobilization and rational governance.