Again, I have no idea what this discussion of terminology has to do with anything. I'm using the plain English meaning of 'spy'. It's not really that important. Although Snowden specifically sought a job to gain access to data and social-engineered passwords out of coworkers. It's not like he was finding files people had forgotten in bathroom stalls and then bumped into the Russian Naval attache at Starbucks and they got to talking.

You also assume that the Russians didn't get the data, either before or after his flight.

Where did I assume that? And again, how is that related to anything?

This fits perfectly with the goal of shaking confidence in western democracy. For this it makes perfect sense to give the data to journalists and come up with a simple and untainted origin story.

No. It doesn't. Snowden's impact has been extremely limited. His value as a source at his job would far, far outweigh any imaginary 'influence operation'. You're essentially saying that the most important thing to Russian intelligence is not actual intelligence but making the west look bad. You haven't answered the zillion of simple questions that arise - why on earth would anyone cultivate a source with such valuable access only to blow him on some completely ridiculous sideshow that could have been accomplished much more cheaply. And, of course, you'd have to do it perfectly - there is nothing the US would like to do more than to discredit Snowden as a Russian spy. So one slip, one little bit of evidence and not only have you wasted this invaluable source, your 'confidence shaking' operation is discredited. Nobody would do that. Your theory has to provide some sort of rational motives for the players and it doesn't - it just piles on improbable things. I'm not trying to defend Snowden. I'm trying to defend common sense. If you think he's a spy, try explaining his actions, his motivations, the motivations of his handlers, etc. I don't think you can.