I don't think so. Both US and Ukraine must lose in the last round before Russia has a chance to win on tie-breaks, and this scenario is unlikely. Between US and Ukraine, I have heard that US has enough tiebreak advantage that all they have to do is win against Canada, but I'm not sure of this.
USA wins Gold! Ukraine gets Silver, and Russia gets Bronze. They all won in the last round, but US beat Ukraine on tiebreaks. On the women side, China wins Gold, Poland gets Silver, and Ukraine gets Bronze.
Magnus in NY at the Marshall Chess Club playing a simul tomorrow. Most of the players are relatively weak, with only one FIDE master. But these things aren't about testing Magnus skill, but about the amateurs that get to be inspired by their greatest ambassador.
Ugh correction the event is at the Liberty Science Center. https://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-plays-handicap-simul-live-video-from-new-york
You can watch the simul live here: http://blogs.lsc.org/2016/09/21/watch-live-magnus-carlsen-competes-at-liberty-science-center/
That was too easy for Carlsen. Why give him white for all the games? That is typical for a simul, but given the strength of his opponents, it probably would have been better alternating (black/white, not all white or black).
Yeah the rule should be if you are under 2000, there is a lottery for those those players to choose their color. No more than half of them would get to choose white to keep it reasonable. But if I were playing a player like Magnus, my goal might not be to win. When I have played in these sorts of simuls before, I approached them in the wrong way. For example, I tried to create the most complex position possible, by say playing a Benko Gambit. The idea is to gain the initiative at all costs and go into complicated tactical battles. I have won simul some games this way against much stronger players than me. Against Magnus, my goal would be to attain a position that was rich in strategy, and see how he goes about beating those kinds of positions. In other words, I want to get him into a position that he really enjoys and he wants to analyse afterwards! Thing is, he would have to be up for it. At this level, all he mostly has to do is wait for an error, and then turn the position into a technical win. Not very instructive. So for example, it would greatly affect my choice of openings. A position that might have made it into "Zurich 1953". For fun with my students, when I have a group, I will sometimes play 5:5 against all of them at once, alternating white and black. The most I did was 5 boards ranging in ratings of 1400 - 1700. It is really funny they love to see me go crazy back and forth. They help each other in trying to beat me, and tell each other not to give up so that together they can gang up on me and at least win on time. They are right!
I had a chance (and foolishly declined) to play Kasparov at his prime in a five-game clock simul. Against Kasparov then or Carlsen now, I would play a solid opening like a Caro-Kann, and see how he would crack it. You could also try to play something slow and unorthodox, as long as you don't end up with an ultra-cramped position. On the other side, playing something sharp and sound like the Najdorf also makes sense if you're comfortable with that type of opening. Just don't play the Najdorf against Kasparov!