I really don't know what those who want to prove Scythians are not European or even similar to Ossetians want to mean.
That identifying ancient peoples with modern conceptions is at best anachronistic. It was and remains a common trope of nationalist historiography (ranging from "Our ancestors the Gauls", protochronism in Albania or Romania, Kossina's Indogermanen, Polish Sarmatism, Ossetia's identification with Scythians, etc. to name but a few) but it doesn't make it truer.
While more or less important connections are attested, it says nothing about acknowledged or relative kinship. Ossetians are a cultural evolution from medieval Caucasian Alans, themselves a sub-branch of Sarmatians, themselves a distinct eastern Scythic people distinct from Scythians they overthrew and forced down to Crimea. You have nowhere to be seen a cultural or historical "pure" continuity, because there's none. Too many conflicting migrations or genetic diversity among Scythic people (whom own broad definition included non-Northern Iranic peoples from the beginning)
Archaeology of Khotan,a Scythian kingdom,is clearly described as being close to Ossetians and European.
[Citation needed]
That Khotian cultures are definitely related to the broad Scythic ensemble (but as well to the Indo-Aryan ensemble in the same time) doesn't make it "close" to Ossetian or European. We know that Sarmatian peoples came westwards in Classical Antiquity, trampling over Scythian peoples (again, in the proper sense) with an Alanic sub-group going to Caucasus and eventually forming Ossetian peoples. The genetic relation is there, as well with Iranian peoples. So far, I never saw being argued that Persians are the "purest" descendents of Khotans. With reason, of course, because it can't be supported.
Since this is the accepted by Scientific and archeological communities,those who say they weren't need to present evidence first. So let's close the case of Scythians.
You're the one that brang platitudes about "pureness" of cultural continuity on the table, which is definitely not something accepted by the archeological or historical community.
Among other studies, I could mention "Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians" by Peter S.Wells on what makes up Barbarian identities relative to Greeks and Romans in Iron Age, and then relative to these identifications (for instance, chapter 7, about how Barbarian peoples super-adopted some "typical" features they were associated with by Greeks and Romans for themselves). You'd argue it concerns mostly eastern European Iron Age peoples, but you'd have something similar with Siberian populations : Saka/non-Saka Scythic peoples differenciation by Achemenids based on the kind of relationship and percieved sophistication is quite interesting there, with other evidence we might consider a double movement from Northern-Eastern Saka west and south that formed respectively Sarmatians and Khotan/Kushan ensemble that would be necessarily related but not a continuation of each other.
Continuing to post pseudoscience denying proven migrations without evidences will be reported henceforth.
Nobody can stop you doing this, but I do hope you have relevant sources and evidence at your side, because threatening of moderation action is frowned upon around there.
If you bring racialized considerations about pure descendence and racialized history (Blond Italians being descendant of Germans being beyond caricatural, honestly) you should expect some criticism.
For myself, I won't even go into the massive straw man of "denying migrations", because it was never about this, of course, but cultural continuity and specificity of Pontic-Siberian peoples
Any Indo-Greek empire will be mostly Indian culturally, you’re right.
Wouldn't that depends, however, from its general direction of expansion? AFAIK, we're discussing an Indus-centered Indo-Greek unified state that wouldn't take easily IMO on the core of Indian civilization that was the Gangetic plain : Indus was at this point more of a cultural "marche" it was eventually. Kushans fairly bypassed it in no small part due to a lack of pre-existing firmly rooted political centers. Without Kushans, or maybe better, Kushans being the reason of a stable Indo-Greek state-building, maybe you won't have a same geopolitical extention or even having a distinct Indo-Scythian state on the Gange.
If it's the case, the relative peripheral position of a litteral Indo-Greek state wouldn't make it this Indian-looking as we might expect and more culturally diverse between various Iranic, Indian and Hellenic influences.
I agree with you on this regard, that it might be a good ancient equivalent to Turkic-Persian influence in India but was Pendjab this important already into Indian civilization? I was under the impression it became to be less peripheral precisely after Kushans conquered and unified the whole of it.
*It would honestly be better if the Indo-Greeks were to expand beyond the Indus region as it historically was extremely vulnerable to outside conquest. A better option might be for them to somehow invade Gujarat.
What about Indo-Greek, under a Scythian rulership, going for (among other reasons, strategical defense) taking over directly or indirectly neighboring marges as far as easternmost Persian sub-kingdoms? Basically between Persian plateau and Indus?