I concur with you that IE and Uralic are probably more closely related to each other than to Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic. It is uncertain, though, whether the latter three form a valid node or not. Turkic looks as if it was closer to Indo-Uralic than the other two, but that may be deceptive (the main point is Turkic's personal endings, which Mongolic and Tungusic lack, but that's probably just a shared retention which doesn't prove anything).
The Yukaghir, Chukotko-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut languages, which I also consider parts of the Mitian macrofamily, are another matter. Eskimo-Aleut looks especially close to Uralic, but that's IMHO probably just due to the conservativism of these two families. Yukaghir is often held to be the closest living kin of Uralic, but the lexical resemblances between the two look more like borrowings from a Samoyedic or Para-Samoyedic language into Yukaghir, and the morphologies are quite different (though Yukaghir looks undeniably Mitian). Chukotko-Kamchatkan is weird, and Fortescue has dropped it from the Uralo-Siberian family (U, Y, ChK, EA) he had proposed in his 1998 book Language Relations across Bering Strait, in an article published in the Lingua journal in 2011 (I think), proposing a connection to Nivkh instead.
Fortescue's reconstruction of Proto-Uralo-Siberian may actually give a good idea of what Proto-Mitian could have looked like, a better one IMHO than either Dolgopolsky's or Bomhard's Proto-Nostratic, which both include data from Afroasiatic and Dravidian, entities which IMHO probably are nowhere close to Mitian, resulting, among other problems, in a bloated phoneme inventory (Bomhard reconstructs 50 consonants, while most Mitian languages are somewhere around 20, with the PIE system probably beefed up by rather recent changes).
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A