The article summarizes the natural increase / decrease in the population of the regions and macroregions of the Russian Federation for 1992-2019. Depopulation is a steady natural population decline, it's characteristic of most European territories (countries or parts thereof), whose population was heavily affected in World War II. This applies to both sides of the conflict — and fascist Germany (as well as militaristic Asian Japan), on the one hand; and the territories of modern Poland, the Republic of Belarus, Ukraine, the European part of the Russian Federation, parts of the former Yugoslavia, on the other hand. As a result, since the 1970s the population of these territories began to enter a period of depopulation, the excess of mortality over fertility. This happened as a result of a downward demographic wave, the so-called «first echo of the Second World War», as well as due to global trends of declining birth rates in the entire developed and rapidly developing world. In general, over the 28 years of the post-Soviet period from the beginning of 1992 to the beginning of2020, depopulation covered all European regions of Russia with the exception of 5 republics of the North Caucasus and the Republic of Kalmykia. A somewhat different picture was observed beyond the Ural Range. Here, the depopulation in most large industrial regions was primarily due to the post-Soviet migration outflow of the population to the European part of the country — to the capital regions and plains of Southern Russia with a favorable climate. Positive natural growth was only in the oil and gas bearing Tyumen oblast, the Republic of Yakutia (Sakha), Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, as well as in the republics of Southern Siberia, whose indigenous population professes Buddhism. The article presents an analysis for each of the typical groups of Russian regions, provides statistics for 28 years of the demographic (reproductive) development of territories, substantiates conclusions, among which the main one is the following. The decrease in the volume of current and upcoming demographic human losses in Russia depends on the consistency, scientific justification, efficiency, effectiveness and selectivity of the country's demographic policy.

The article examines the components of the balance of interregional migration of the Russian population for 27 post-Soviet years, from 1993 to 2019. The main macro-regions of Russia and the results of their interregional migration development for the period are being investigated. Trends and patterns are revealed. The first of them is a continuation of the super-concentration of the population in the first five regions — interregional migration recipients of the country (Moscow, Moscow region, St. Petersburg, Leningrad region and Krasnodar region) due, first of all, interregional migration. The latter as a whole for the period ranged from 3/4 to 4/5 of their migration growth. The balance of population placement in Russia continues to break down. All this is happening under the influence of market mechanisms and does not stop, but, on the contrary, is amplified in the 21st century. The steps of the authorities in this area remain not effective enough. The first five regions are fueled by migration through the country's most important territories, such as Siberia, the Far East and the European North, as well as at the expense of most other territories. Perhaps the only positive development in inter-regional migration in recent years is the increase in the outflow of predominantly rural populations from the overpopulated republics of the North Caucasus.

This article discusses the main points of the formation and development of the concept«demographic potential» used for the purposes of management and forecasting in a changing environment. The need for demographic potential as an instrumental, supporting notion arose when researchers began to examine possible effects of demographic processes and their impact on the structure and size of population in the future, i.e. build population projections and population development models. Historically, researchers studied demographic potential separately for each component of the overall population growth. Beginning of the study of fertility potential is associated with the name of R. E. Fisher, life potential — with the work of L. Hersch, migration capacity — with the works of J. Q. Stewart, G. K. Zipf, S. A. Staufer and W. Izard. Attempts to assess the joint effect of different components of the overall population growth were episodic. Only in the 30s of the twentieth century the integrated synthesis indicators began to be used for describing the demographic potential. One of the indicators for capacity of population reproduction may be net reproduction rate. Modern interpretations of the potential of changes in fertility and mortality, migration capacity have a wider purpose and filling than at the time of these concepts’ formation. Demographic potential in a narrow sense is the potential population reproduction, including changes in fertility and mortality; in a broader sense, it is the total potential of population — potential of reproduction and migration potential, including possible changes in the population size and structure due to births, deaths, immigration and emigration.

The article deals with the demographic dynamics of the regions of Russia during the post-war Soviet period since 1959, and in the post-Soviet period of 1991–2017. It identifies the basic factors of demographic development of the country’s regions in these two historical periods. There is presented the grouping p of regions by the level of demographic dynamics and the ratio of two main components — reproduction and migration, are highlighted the leaders of demographic growth and problem regions. The authors show the dynamics of geopolitically significant territories of Russia, primarily in the Far East. They stress that in the post-war period, up to the collapse of the USSR, the demographic development of the majority of Russian regions was provided mainly at the expense of inner resources, i. e. due to natural population growth. The same is true for geopolitically significant outlying territories of the Far East, Siberia and the European North, where in 1970–1990 almost 7/8 of the total population growth was formed due to natural population growth and only 1/8 — due to migration from other regions of Russia, as well as from the former republics of the USSR. There is made a conclusion that to change radically the demographic situation in the Far East “de facto” only with immigration of compatriots, as is being done now, is not possible. To solve this problem, it’s necessary to use all demographic «leverage» — fertility, interregional migration, immigration of both compatriots and (selectively) representatives of the titular peoples of the former Soviet republics, as well as temporary (labor and educational) migration as a potential of permanent migration.

The article deals with methodological and methodological issues of comparative analysis of age structures of the population, identification of the level of their unevenness due to structural demographic waves. The benchmark for comparison is the age structure of the population, built on the series of "Numbers living in this age interval" from the "Tables of mortality and life expectancy" of Rosstat. The coefficients existing in the practice of socio-economic analysis for measuring the structural differences of the series are considered. These coefficients are studied from the standpoint of the possibility of their application for measuring structural demographic waves in Russia as a whole and in its regions. These coefficients are necessary not only to measure and compare the degree of differences, unevenness of the age structures of the population of separate territories, but also to monitor this situation over time. The latter is necessary to develop policies to smooth out the structural demographic waves. The index (1-R) proposed in the article, showing the residual value of covariance not described by the coefficient of determination, can be used at the stage of preliminary analysis of the differences in structures, since it is instantly calculated using application programs and gives a general picture of the level of unevenness of the series, ranks them on this basis. In our opinion, the most adequate measure of differences in structures is the coefficient of unevenness (Kn), calculated by analogy with the coefficient of variation. It is preferable at the main stage of comparative analysis, as it reveals the average relative measure of the unevenness of pairs of series, is simple and understandable in interpretation. Three other similar coefficients (Gatev, Salai, Ryabtsev) can be used as a supplement to confirm the adequacy of the comparative analysis, as well as for an overall assessment of the degree of discrepancy between the series using the scale familiar to the end user from zero to one. All five coefficients for measuring the degree of unevenness of structural series are suitable not only for studying the age structural waves of the population of the country and its regions, but also for comparing the age structures of the population of different territories with each other. The conclusions to the article contain recommendations for building a path for the most effective smoothing of the demographic structural waves in Russia with the help of differentiated in time and regional demographic policy in the field of fertility and immigration.