It's always made me chuckle how "R&R" has been internalized by non-sede traditionalists. It's a problem term not just because it doesn't actually describe what the SSPX, at its best, "is all about" but also because it's so vague that it applies to any position that obliquely criticizes something about Vatican II. For instance, Taylor Marshall-- who is boilerplate FSSP in his approach to the crisis-- described Michael Matt as an emblem of R&R. And that's just hilarious. Someone like Matt and the Remnant crowd might indeed recognize, but they resist nothing. If a given traditionalist position includes only behaving within the boundaries set by conciliar authorities, how on earth does that constitute resistance? Maybe it constitutes some internal preference, perhaps even an internal principle, but if when push comes to shove they won't even set foot in an SSPX chapel, it's obvious nothing is being resisted.
For the SSPX-types, the problem is with the other "R"(ecognize), quite obviously. Recognize what? That Bergoglio (or Ratzinger or whomever) are popes, or recognize that they promote heresy? There's a chasm between recognizing in practice and recognizing in theory. This has been said a million times by a million people, but if you don't use the same liturgy, sacraments, calendar, laws, teaching materials, etc. the pope has given you-- and in this case you positively reject them as far as you can-- you're really not recognizing anything. Certainly not to the degree that "recognize" should be factored into a description of your position!
I do actually think that the OP is more or less accurate describing the initial impetus of the SSPX. But I think we all do well to recognize that Archbishop Lefebvre was constantly re-assessing the situation. His only principle was Catholic Tradition, and over time the maintenance of Tradition was something that, in his opinion, called for different strategies. By the end of his life I think it is fair to say he had very little hope that the problem would be solved by his efforts, so he doubled down with the 1988 consecrations. This is not to say he was not committed to a restoration, only to say that time revealed to him that the conciliar authorities were not interested in it. By the end of his life, he had little hope that any deal would be facilitative of a restoration. What are the reasons to hope that 2019 is different?