The most interesting and unexpected ingredient in the Russia-US summit is how well the Russian leaders have managed the financial turmoil. That changes in their favour, slightly, the dynamics of the meeting, which otherwise turn on that peculiar Russian mix of extremes of strength and weakness.

On one hand, President Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, hold cards that matter hugely to any US president: nuclear missiles; oil; gas; one of the world’s largest armies; friendship with Iran; influence, obsessively deployed, over the Caucasus and Central Asia; a permanent seat — and veto — on the United Nations Security Council.

On the other, there is the reality of Russia’s vulnerability on every count of finance, trade, and military strength. There are the big, bald statistics of its shrinking population (although that may be reversing), falling life expectancy (although that is suddenly improving), and stubborn poverty. Most painfully, too, there is the memory of the Soviet era and the incredulity at the sharpness of the reversal.

The US team has made clear that in its calculation, the strengths make it worth its while trying to “reset” the relationship. But the weaknesses mean that if the attempt fails, Russia could be relegated behind more pressing problems.

The element that might change this calculation is the Russian leaders’ recent skilful management of the economy. It not only points to surefootedness in economic management, which their rhetoric has not often suggested. It offers hope that Russia may find its way out of its current sour resentment, and autocratic rule, and into a more stable future.

A World Bank report last month spelt out the unexpected upside to Russia’s otherwise unsurprising suffering during the crisis. Yes, there has been plenty of damage. Real gross domestic product is expected to shrink by about 7.9 per cent this year (compared with a global fall in output of 2.9 per cent). That is a big shock after a decade of high growth, driven by high oil and gas prices. The stock market lost two thirds of its value in the five months to November 2008.

Unemployment could now rise to 13 per cent and poverty to 17.4 per cent by the end of the year, the bank warned, noting that the middle class would also shrink by a tenth, or more than six million people, to just over half the population.

However, the bank, which called the Government’s response “swift, co-ordinated, and comprehensive”, noted that Russia’s leaders had moved quickly to cut spending as the oil price fell (including pushing through an aggressive rethinking of the military). They had arranged a large stimulus, and had responded to the plunge in foreign reserves (figures yesterday showed a net capital inflow of $7.2 billion in the second quarter of 2009, after $35 billion flowed out in the first quarter). The worst effects of the crisis were perhaps past, the bank suggested. If — a huge if — Russia took the chance to reform old industries, and made them more competitive, then it could come out of the crisis with a more modern, diversified economy.

There are a few slight signs that Russia’s leaders might seize that chance, such as the overhaul of the military (arms, and rules for conscription). Alternatively, they will persist with their technique of blaming others for their problems, and focusing on external threats, not obstacles at home.

President Obama’s quest of trying to find a new deal to cut stockpiles of nuclear missiles is an honourable one. But its success will depend on whether Russia can be persuaded out of the mindset in which the expansion and success of the European Union and Nato are a threat. The US has had much less success with Russia than with China in persuading it of the value of becoming part of international organisations and laws. Not much in Putin’s or Medvedev’s recent behaviour suggests that they are that way inclined.

All the same, the weakness of modern Russia, clutching the few great prizes of its recent past, in the form of missiles and oil wells while the rest lies in tatters, is one point of leverage. So is the Russian leaders’ astute reaction to the crisis, which they dubbed the failure of capitalism. That shows that they can set ideology aside and take quick steps in the country’s interest. That can only be a hopeful sign for Russia’s chances of becoming a less fearful and more modern state.

Times Recommends

• A dose of defeat is just the medicine
• Protecting ourselves from Eurocreep
• After the summer of LUV, it'll still hurt