I beg to differ. See quoting just part of a sentence doesn’t work well…
historically russia has been a very depended supplier of energy to Europe.
Historically yes. Till they decided to invade their neighbors with a major gas transit function and started a war and throttling gas supply, which forced Europe to replace Russia as a supplier with billions in economic damage. What they were is very cheap, and polluting. NS2 would have made them even cheaper cause it skipped the transit countries including Ukraine, saving billions in transit fees.
A LOT has changed since 2019, when that article you posted was written. Yet you put this in bold: “Yet relations between Europe and Russia in the natural-gas sector have remained nearly constant." which is far from the reality in 2022. Just as that 40%… history.
”has led US congresspeople to threaten sanctions. "- 2020
Your implied non-sequitur conclusion is not even good enough level for a plot in CSI Miami. Threatening with sanctions then and hindsight was the right thing to do. They were also not alone in their opposition, the EU passed a resolution 2 years earlier, by 80% majority, to call for the cancellation of the construction of NS2 for the reasons that by now turned out to be spot on: “it is a political project that poses a threat to European energy security.” Those US congresspeople supported the majority of politicians and people in the EU by putting pressure on Germany, who despite the many warnings chose money (=influence in EU) and a shortcut to meet self-imposed climate change milestones (increasing dependence on gas temporarily rather than switching directly to renewables and greener options).