There are shops which still have this lens (the VR G II version with nano-coating) in stock. If money is not the issue you could contact
www.rajalacamera.fi for example, it is the largest camera shop in Finland. (I am not associated with them, just noticed that their website says they have it in stock.)
Since Nikon is putting out other superfast lenses (i.e. 85/1.2, 50/1.2, 58/0.95, upcoming 35mm etc.) there is clearly a demand for lenses that produce shallow depth of field and images with unique look, even though these do not sell in large numbers. I think the 200/2 was discontinued because of the transition from DSLR to mirrorless (in a time when there was no Z camera that could focus the 200 on an action subject). That changed with the Z9 and Z8 which make the 200/2 better than ever was before in terms of autofocus and stabilization. Thus I think it's kind of a victim of an unfortunate sequence of events. Nikon also closed factories due to lack of sales in those years. I have no doubt that Nikon will continue bringing out similar lenses for the Z mount over time, but 200-300mm primes seem to be out of fashion at the moment. I suspect it's because of the long decline of sports photography and photojournalism in general, former staffers are let go and hired as freelancers who have to buy their own gear, and don't get paid all that well. People want their news and content "for free" so instead of paying for the people who produced the substance, we are subjected to targeted advertising.
The 200/2 really has a unique look and produces results that look different from any other lens. There are millions of 70-200/2.8's in use and those are good and practical lenses but in my opinion they don't really give anything to help photographers produce something that distinguishes their images from their peers'. Of course, the argument can be made that instead of a lens that produces a unique look the photographer should do that, but lenses can help achieve that objective as well.
