It's easy to pivot to "the aftermath of war", but plenty, PLENTY of people and organizations pointed out that reliance on imported energy, especially from Russia, was not a great idea.
Though not preparing a backup plan after the first invasion in 2014 was a bad decision. Little hindsight needed here.
At the end of the day all that matters is that a nation is self-sufficient in the essentials and participates in the global economy that augment that self-sufficiency without damaging it. Anything else is hubris because you're just doomed to repeat history, and it's outright greed because the people making the decisions aren't the ones going to bear the brunt when they inevitably fail.
So talking about this is interesting "huehuehuhue" farting, but not a very realistic political strategy.
For renewable energies in the U.S., would the U.S. be considered reliant on places like China for the batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, etc?
We'd only be dependent on expanding energy if the manufacturing of key components was happening outside the US.
Expanding your energy supply is nowhere near as important as maintaining 50% of your total energy supply (EU fossil fuels).
US energy consumption has been close to flat for 20 years.
Gas, coal, wood pellets, etc. You buy them, you burn them, they're gone. You need new supplies tomorrow.
Moreover, turbine part transportation is such a logistical challenge that manufacturers are always trying to set up assembly facilities near their customers. All four of those companies are shopping for factory space in the American Midwest for that reason.
Batteries and solar panels are impossible to really monopolize. Yes, Lithium comes from a constrained list of places, but for grid-linked power storage you don't need lithium. Space and weight are not as big a concern for stationary installed facilities, so you have lots of other options.
Parts are assembled where you mentioned which crucial parts sourced.
You perhaps could generate some hypothetical interdependencies that would preclude war, but it may also argue for all-out "seize the other country" war, too.
Trump famously did and the Germans laughed at him for it.
Obama and Biden (both as VP and now as President) did.
Even as far back as George Bush: he warned them, although it was presented more as a trade matter since it would have been beneficial for the energy industry and this was pre-fracking revolution.
It has been a choir of warnings for decades, but the hubris of European technocrats wouldn't let them see reality.
And for Europe, it's not simply hubris though. There's multiple things at work. When the United States or Canada says to Europe: Don't buy energy from Russia, what Europeans legitimately heard was: Buy energy (at more cost and logistical challenge) from us instead.
Meanwhile Canada especially -- but likely the US as well -- was very much focused on building infrastructure for trade with the Pacific Rim, not Europe. So what other choice did Europe realistically have anyways?
I'm mad at hell at successive Canadian governments (what I'm most familiar with) who prioritized trade with China (or bulk exports to the US without value add). At the expense of the domestic market/infrastructure, at the expense of developing renewables, and at the expense of our European allies. Insanely short term thinking. An LNG facility on the St Lawrence would be real nice right now. Instead a massive LNG facility is being built for coastal British Columbia, and pipeline infrastructure being set up for that. Wrong coast it turns out because China will be perfectly happy to import from Russia instead. But again, all eyes on China, despite the risks that entailed, which are similar to the risks that western Europe had with Russia.
Those pipelines were shipping gas to Europe literally for decades. Countries like Ukraine, Belarus or Poland were making handsome money from the transit fees too.
It doesn't make it a wise choice to have no backup for Russian gas, but I'm sure the industry lobby to keep the cheap gas was very strong.