A nuclear plant in a war zone is a dirty bomb waiting to be set off, which is incredibly easy to do, technically. Gas and coal plants are also end up being easy targets, as the war in Ukraine has shown. The most reliable one is solar because of how distributed it is. You can knock off one solar field, but then there are rooftops. You really need to destroy a city if you want to get it rid of power completely.

(Diesel power generators also work, but they require constant fuel supply, which can be complicated in a war zone)

In practice, in Ukraine distributed solar power has been an increasingly important source of resilience in their power supply system.

There are legit reasons to push back against “solar and batteries everywhere” but I find it hard to credit resilience in a conflict situation as one of them.

I think I'd rather a solar panel array be bombed than a nuclear power plant.

Solar has the advantage that it can be widely distributed on buildings rather than in just a few centralized locations.

I don't see how anything would be more resilient than solar.