Then you are a Sedevacantist, and the seat is vacant.
Not necessarily. The only condition is that the destructive acts that we see here did not emanate from the Church's authority.
Father Chazal's sede-impoundism works nicely, or some sedeprivationist variant of Cajtean / John of St. Thomas. I do not rule out that Paul VI was blackmailed. I am personally of the opinion that Siri had been elected and the Church was put into a state of eclipse. Or sedevacantism is very possible as well.
This is the same line of thinking Archbishop Lefebvre articulated in that famous audio.
He declared out of the gate that it is not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Spirit, could perpetrate such destruction. So he beings speculating. Was Montini out of his mind? Was he being blackmailed? He didn't think so. He said then that it's possible that the See is vacant. But then he concludes with it being a mystery.
Archbishop Lefebvre never jettisoned the notion that this degree of destruction is not possible due to the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps the papacy generally free from error. He often stated that he might have to go sedevacantist, but preferred to wait, to leave it to the Church's authority to decide this "some day".
So I echo these sentiments 100%. I cannot be sure what exactly happened. I do not rule out the Montini being blackmailed theory either. But we don't have smoking gun proof of any of this, just suspicions and doubts and speculation.
I'm not a sedevacantist. I am an indefectibilist, and that indefectibilism leads to serious doubts and questions about who these men are. And that's as far as we can go absent the intervention of Church authority.
I agree with the R&R (and sedeprivationist) criticism of sedevacantism that you can't, as a principle, have Catholics going around effectively deposing popes. While you can explain sedevacantism to "Aunt Helen," what give "Aunt Helen" the right to conclude on her own that the See is vacant?