The story accurately reports Russia's accusations against European countries for blocking peace efforts by retaining sanctions. It also correctly states the agreement on a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea and the Kremlin's demand for lifting sanctions on the Russian Agricultural Bank. However, the claim that Brussels will maintain sanctions until the war ends requires verification, as does the impact of these sanctions on Russian grain exports. Additionally, the story mentions a high export expectation of 49.5 million tons of grain, which is a specific figure that needs corroboration. The report of a meeting between Russian and Chinese foreign ministers aligns with known diplomatic activities, but specific details about the proposed discussions and outcomes are less clear.

The article primarily presents the Russian perspective, particularly through statements from Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, and lacks a balanced representation of European or Ukrainian viewpoints. While it mentions Brussels' stance on maintaining sanctions, it does not delve into the European rationale or counterarguments in detail. The inclusion of China's role and its peace plan offers some balance, but overall, the article could benefit from a broader range of perspectives, especially from the EU and Ukraine, to provide a more balanced view of the situation.

The article is generally clear and concise, presenting the main points in a straightforward manner. The structure is logical, beginning with the central claim about sanctions and peace efforts, followed by related diplomatic developments. However, the article could improve in clarity by providing more background information on the sanctions' history and the specific terms of the maritime ceasefire. The language is neutral, but the lack of detailed context may affect comprehension for readers unfamiliar with the ongoing conflict.

The story relies heavily on statements from Russian officials and the state news agency TASS, which may have inherent biases. While TASS is a major Russian news outlet, its state affiliation can affect impartiality. The article also references Interfax for grain export figures, another Russian source. There is a lack of independent or third-party sources to corroborate these claims, which could enhance the story's credibility. The absence of direct quotes or statements from European or Ukrainian officials further limits the source diversity.

The article does not provide much context about the background of the sanctions or the specific conditions of the maritime ceasefire. It lacks transparency regarding the methodology of how information was gathered, particularly the grain export figures and the details of the diplomatic discussions in Riyadh. The story would benefit from more explicit disclosures about the sources of its information and any potential conflicts of interest, particularly concerning the Russian state media's involvement.