In this case, I think it may have been less risky to send in forces under fighting strength. The idea is not to fight a war, so I think it might be better and more palatable to those who need to agree to it to avoid sending in enough forces to pose a credible threat. Their job would be to communicate our willingness to defend the country. But I was primarily thinking of logistical problems at the time I wrote the paragraph you're responding to - I'm not sure the timelines were generous enough to move in the forces needed to garrison the country, and I don't believe it was needed anyways. I do agree that we shouldn't be bluffing; the damage from getting a bluff called is too high, so we can't afford to bluff. In this hypothetical, now obsolete and infeasible plan, it'd be made clear that if the fighting starts, positions would be reinforced to fight alongside the Ukrainian forces if their positions are threatened, not abandoned.
Ultimately I don't think western nations were really willing to stick their necks out for Ukraine, and that's why Kiev is getting bombed right now.