1
It depends on what level. Certainly not as a whole.
R1men among them, of course yes. Women - mostly yes. Culture - mostly probably yes. Au - mostly yes. aso.
In other words - they should be lingustically reindoeuropeanized, especially Panonians, who have ten times less common with Uralians, than Afroamericans with Anglosaxons
Finns still have swedish as a part of their identity, so it should be counted on their IE benefit.
But if, and this is BIIIIIIG IF (but has it's own supporters), indo-european and uralic languages are indeed realted (I deeply doubt) then they should be just counted as indoeuropean, not as Indo-Uralic what is sensless, so then, they would be just Indoeuropeans as Iranians, Indians, or other low-R1 indoeuropean speking countries are.
But the probability of indoeuropeanness of uralic languages is very low, almost zero. The main thing which supports such ideas is probably strong indoeuropean substrate, which is obvious not only in vocabulary or people's appeariance, but also in some tribal names - and there is not so few of them - like Saami, Soumi, Eesi, Mordva, Moksha, Erzya, Mansi, Mari, and even Magyar is considered by some scholars as indoeuropean name or as a mix.
Bookmarks