That's the sort of truly devious thinking we, the laity, could expect from The Church's first Jesuit Pope. The good news (and there is good news) is he could never, ever accomplish that. Various trad groups are as separate (and if we're being honest, antithetical) to each other as they are to the Novus Ordo and modernists in general.
Just look at the various "big Catholic blogs" and the unbelievably vicious fights they have among themselves. That's just the laity. Traditionalist priests have a "siege" mentality that far surpasses that. Most priests would, out of a very self-conscious effort to show Catholic charity, refrain that sort of abusive mud-slinging (at least publicly) but they would be blunt in stating that other trad groups (whichever they may be) don't share their ideology and thus they want nothing to do with them.
In general, the SSPX looks at the FSSP as traitors. Unofficially, from what I've seen, the FSSP disdainfully looks at their SSPX "ancestors" in very much the same manner charitable Catholics look at Jews...close to the truth but stubborn in their ignorance and, in practicing ideology, outside The Church with all that entails.
Pope Francis would have an easier time herding an animal shelter's worth of cats stoned on LSD than he would consolidating traditionalists. About the only single thing they agree upon is that the current pontiff is a horrible, horrible person.

Apparently you're as ignorant as you are crass. I'm more of a traditionalist than the SSPX and their whiney fan-boys.

I would say that you are more of an oxymoron more than anything else. You are using a V2 document to discredit a traditional order that does not subscribe V2. Please provide a pre-V2 example of condemning traditional priests for holding to traditional Catholic teachings and not going with the freemasonic changes of V2.

"Sacraments administered by the schismatic orthodox are valid, but that doesn't change the fact they're still schismatics."
You are attempting to hold two contrary positions at the same time.
Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Speaking of the eastern churches separated from the Catholic Church, Unitatis Redintegratio #15 states, in pertinent part: "These churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy."
By insinuating that priests of the SSPX are schismatic, you are implictly stating that the marriages they witness are valid and the absolutions they give are valid. If that is so, then they don't need faculties from a bishop or the pope. Therefore, according to you, Pope Francis' granting of faculties was a useless act, as their sacraments are already valid.
However, if they are not schismatic, they require faculties for the valid absolution of sins, as canon 966 attests, which is why the pope extended faculties to them.
From Misericordia et Misera, #12, of Pope Francis: "For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins."
Either the SSPX is schismatic and they don't need faculties because, like the Orthodox, their absolutions are valid, or they are not schismatic and they need faculties to give absolution validly.
It's either one or the other. Can't have it both ways.

Correction to above: "implicitly."

To Archbishop Lefebvre’s comment, any good priest will tell you that the promise of obedience requires the greatest struggle.