The fact is that other than Germanic people, it is very difficult to prove any other Indo-European speaking people lived in the Middle East and Mediterranean area before 1700 BC, of course there could be some IE people but their language seem to be extinct, like a language which could be a direct ancestor of proto-Greek and Anatolian in the northwest of Iran and Armenia. Almost all loanwords in Sumerian and Akkadian languages are from proto-Germanic, but we can find many words from those languages in almost all other IE languages. I don't think that in 2,000 BC Indo-European languages were far from each other, Indo-Iranians lived in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Italo-Celtic people in the north or northeast of Iran, Balto-Slavic in the north of Caucasus, ... Of course these languages have become extinct too and just subbranches exist.
No. That includes Germanic as well. That's YOUR theory that nobody else agrees with that the Gutians were Germanics. We don't even know if they were Indo-European to begin with! You really need to stop pretending YOUR theories are fact. Again, I'm not attacking you--you have some interesting ideas, but the way you present things doesn't make anybody want to consider your ideas (hence the criticisms in other threads). If there was evidence (or even remote evidence) of Germanics in the Near East 2700 years ago, more people would talk about this. There isn't besides Gutian
kind of sounding like Goths.
The "Proto-Greek" language was Mycenaean. A pre-proto Greek language would be Greaco-Armenian or maybe Greaco-Armeno-Aryan. We know that there were Anatolians in the ME/eastern Mediterranean by 1700 BCE. There were likely Armenians as well (Trialeti-Vanadzor, Nerkin/Verin Naver). We have Arman (likely Anatolian or Proto-Anatolian) in northern Syria/southern Turkey (Damgaard et al.) circa 2300 BCE. There were likely Greek (Mycenaean-like) people in the Mediterranean and Turkey at this time (Achaeans/Ahhiyawans). Your argument is totally baseless.
What you're essentially advocating is the Armenian hypothesis, which has been partially proven by geneticists like Reich. There is no reason to believe that Germanics and Celts were in the Near East, rather that these respective languages share a common root that came from a language originally spoken somewhere in Armenia/western Azerbaijan/northern Iran.
This seems to be the most reasonable model according to the present scientific and linguistic data: Armenian-like people living in South Caucasus (maybe Shulaveri-Shomu, which was mostly located in Armenia and Azerbaijan, also southern Georgia and northern Iran) spoke PPIE. Some moved west and became Anatolians. Others moved north. Some
may have stayed in Armenia/Georgia. The ones in the north mixed with Steppe pastoralists and branched out every direction. This gave rise to all other IE languages. This is not MY theory. This is the most current mainstream theory, which is based on genetic, linguistic, and archaeological information.
There were likely Indo-Europeans in Armenia, Georgia, and Central Turkey by 2000 BCE (likely more like 2300--I'm thinking specifically about Alaca Hoyuk and Nerkin/Verin Navers). These people were either partially Steppe derived or had close contact with the Steppe peoples. This is not MY theory. This is based on the archaeological record.
I think that it's likely that there was another, probably earlier group (Euphratic) who lived in SE Turkey/northern Zagros region who were in contact with the Sumerians. They may have been the direct descendent of the Shulaveri-Shomu culture. They may have given rise to the Gutians. They may have given rise to the Anatolians. They may have given rise to Armenians (at least partially--some of the likely IE>Sumerian loanwords are very similar to Armenian words). They may have been in contact with the Hattians. But again, this is just a THEORY. This is not a fact. It's entirely speculation on MY part, based largely on Whittaker's work.