Locating Proto-Uralic

[Jaska]

“ The  partial  overlapping  of  the  Fatyanovo-Balanovo  and  the  Abashevo  Cultures  could  explain  the  regionally  spread  features  shared  by  Balto-Slavic  and  Indo-Iranian,  like  satemization  and  the  ruki-rule  (see  Section  2.3),  as  suggested  by  Parpola (2022: 264).”
Absolutely nothing Baltoslavic in Fatyanovo - Balanovo.
Autosomally, Y, archeologically Baltoslavic better fits to Trzciniets cultural complex (maybe part of it, such as Sosnitsa), other parts dying out linguistically). I am also not aware of linguistic hard No’s for this. Many linguists are writing about BS Fatyanovo but that is circular reasoning based on Baltic hydronyms that I am sure had nothing to do with Fatyanovo and I am not sure if they even covered all F.
BS and II had many touchpoints anyway. For satemization or For ruki (also Albanian had ruki in some way). We are not deriving Albanian from F. Are we?

1. Development of PIE *s in Albanian is very complicated, and although the result is sh before u and i, there are three other reflexes, and no trace of change to sh before r or k. Therefore, it is most probably independent process in Albanian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_l...spondences

2. Naturally the Baltic hydronyms are only Baltic, not Proto-Balto-Slavic. Nobody claims anything about Proto-Balto-Slavic based on them, as far as I know.

3. There are Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords in West Uralic, including Mordvin (earlier spoken even to the west from Oka, but not far). There are also loanwords from later Balto-Slavic stages (proposed Para-Slavic loanwords, and also Baltic loanwords different from the extant Baltic languages), which shows that the Balto-Slavic diversity reached further to the east than one would assume based only on the extant and historically attested Baltic and Slavic languages. 

To conclude: the extant languages are only the westernmost remnants of earlier much wider Balto-Slavic region reaching to the east. Therefore, you cannot locate Proto-Balto-Slavic based only on the extant and historical varieties: it would lead to an erroneous result.

4. There are several genetic or archaeological roots and influxes in every region. You cannot just decide that one of them represents Proto-Balto-Slavic. It is more a rule than an exception that the genetic composition of language carriers changes from step to step of linguistic expansion. Therefore, you cannot just randomly pick one haplogroup seen in the later populations and claim that when you follow it back in time, you will automatically find the language carriers. That is neither reliable nor scientific method - that is only guessing. There is absolutely no law of nature requiring that language always follows the majority genetic root.