Truth be told, I'm not the best at this sort of stuff so I will admit my ignorance. That being said let me pose this question to you then.
If we take the Russians who have a very robust defense orientated military infrastructure set up in Russia that is meant to counter U.S. military in Eastern Europe and beyond. Can one say or try to say that an equally defended nations can stack up to an equally offensive nation? I guess at that point we can't use the term "peer" military since, from what I gather you're trying to say, is that a peer military must be similar enough in order for there to be an comparison in the first place.
I.E:
-Object A is an hyper offensive military with all the characteristics of one that come therein.
-Object B is an hyper defensive military with all the characteristics of one that come therein.
Can we then compare the power level of these two militaries more directly even though they are effectively polar opposites.
What overall terms and classifications, in your view, do we need to use when comparing such nations and militaries?
Actually, your scenario -- A v B -- was one variation from many that was discussed. It is like asking the proverbial question: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
When you think about it, your scenario begged the question: What prompted A to be 'hyper offensive' and B to be 'hyper defensive' in the first place? So the answer to your question -- the highlighted -- is actually very easy: They are peers.
They are peers. They just directed their respective knowledge, skills, and resources towards different goals.
Let us assume that there are other countries and observers in the region. To some, the 'hyper offensive' capabilities of A would be an effective deterrence in that you do not want to anger A lest you incur the irresistible destruction. To others, the 'hyper defensive' capabilities of B would be an effective deterrence in that you understand that you would be wasting your resources in trying to conquer B. So to everyone, A and B are peers to each other and incomparable to everyone else.
In the real world,
realpolitik expects this kind of estimation for self and everyone. It is not only what you are but also important are why you chose to be what you are and how -- the paths -- you took to become what you are. This is why the US State Dept and the many ministries of foreign affairs employs historians and the various 'soft science' specialists. We want to understand a people's collective psychology. For example, when China's was the world's premier naval power, why did China stopped after Zheng He's journey from China all the way to Europe? In this case, it was the emperor's Confucian beliefs and nothing technology related that effectively ruined China's naval prowess. China's navy at that time was very much an irresistible force.
So just to make sure. What I think you're saying is that for a military to be considered a peer military to another, it must be comparable in all or nearly all facets?
Should be, not must be.
Russia have access to the seas, but Russia's access to the seas are not as good as the US. That made it more difficult for the Soviet Union to compete against the US regarding on
HOW to become a comparable naval power. So in this case, geography factored in for the Soviet Union, then when it became evident that the Soviet Navy is less than the US Navy, the Soviet Navy was estimated not a peer to the US Navy. Which is scarier to see, an aircraft carrier or a destroyer? For any country's leader, the knowledge that a US aircraft carrier is heading his way produced either hope or fear with no gradations in between. This feeling -- hope or fear -- maybe physically intangible but produces real world effects in the sense that it affects how the country's leader weighs Russia and the US, and produces matching foreign affairs policies.
You can argue that the Russian Navy have more destroyers than the US Navy, but it would have little effect, if any, in those estimations of who is peer to whom. This is why people naturally gravitates to harder metrics like manpower, number of tanks and ships, and so on. It is easy but devoid of important contexts that foreign policies demands.
National policies matters. A one million man army is no good if there is an aggressive foreign affairs policies but the navy cannot transport that one million man army anywhere. So in observers' estimations, a country that have a smaller army but a better naval transport capability to support the country's foreign affairs will be perceived as superior. In this case, one set of hard metrics outweighs another.
Estimation of who is peer to whom is actually not art but more like craft. A craft requires patience, skills, resources, and long term access to all those things. People simply do not like to use craft. It is too time consuming to do basic research and think. Some tried to be objective and when they came to the conclusion that A is not a peer to B, their disappointment compelled them to abandon objectivity and get emotional. The results are hypernationalistic language and meaningless bluster.
Newsflash: Most of the F-22 fleet is GROUNDED due to maintenance,...
Newsflash: You are treading into an area you know nothing about.
If I remove one fastener on a panel that have minimal exposure to aerodynamic forces, I have just grounded the aircraft based upon
CURRENT PEACETIME standards.
Let us say that the base's logistics system ran out of that fastener. Now the aircraft is grounded for as long as it takes for the manufacturer to make that fastener and ship to the USAF. For the aircraft, no mission critical systems are affected.
Now check this out...
Make no mistake about the image above. If there is a national emergency, that one fastener would not prevent the base from launching that aircraft.
When I was active duty, I briefly taught Aircraft Battle Damage Repairs (ABDR)...
https://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1856622/ingenuity-under-pressure/
On the F-111 with its mechanical flight controls system, I can use a broomstick and aluminum from a six pack of soda to replace a push-pull rod and authorized the jet for another mission.
You think I made up the flight control push-pull rod?
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aircraft-bu...-systems/push-pull-tube-control-installations
I would empty the liquid from the cans, use a snip to shape the aluminum, cut the broomstick to length, then wrap the aluminum around the broomstick for strength.
Voila, this battle damaged F-111 can fly the next mission.
Peacetime safety standards are not the same as wartime needs.