I meant that they do even more than fighting sporadically.
Exchanging gun fire, heavy weapon fire is one thing, exchanging artillery strike is more like full blown skirmishes 
its a weird cease fire they got down there.
And sorry but the "Rebels fired first, so we have to retaliate" only works at the first ever shot after the cease fire was applied. Afterward its only war and you can not argue that the rebels are the only ones taking the initiative.
Its been a month already so you can easily guess that they have been switching the attacker/defender mantle at least a hundred times since, trying to argue anything else is childish at best.
I dont know what you are trying to prove? Whether he sits directly around the airport, a few kilometers away, or in Moscow, if Ukrainian shells are landing at the airport it means that its not a Ukrainian controlled zone, because you dont fire at your own positions with artillery. Thats all there is to say.
Have you CHECKED the shells landing at the airport, do they have "made and fired by Ukraine army" tags or something? Do you have some proofs except an opinion of some nutjob, who is acting cool about shells/rockets falling nearby, while that "nearby" is not even in/close enough to the airport to find hot shrapnels from the shells? How are those rockets/shells falling nearby the same ones which supposedly Ukrainians are firing at the airport, which is visible in the distance, but then how the explosions and hot shrapnells are falling nearby? I may have a serious case of MIND = BLOWN (too much late night work lately), but I can't understand how any of their statements should be trustworthy or even worth considering seriously... They have occupied the airport numerous times already... nothing new there.
Also - there are Ukrainians on defense, there are nutjobs as the one in the video on the offense. Which of them keep something up and which are defending, because their leadership does not allow any significant counter-action? If it was "we attacked, got repelled, than attacked again, got repelled..." - then it is ONE side breaking truce, not both. I understand the rebels are butt-hurt at not being able to do anything serious without direct involvement of russian army and not hiding behind civilians, but still, it does not automatically mean, that both sides are guilty of violating truce. Or is this logic somehow different from where you are looking?
Meanwhile in Crimea -
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/crimean-tatars-disappear-nineteen-now-missing-since-russian-takeover. See DonNicko? Being a minority group in Crimea is totally awesome, just like Tatarstan...
Meanwhile in russia-proper:
http://www.france24.com/en/20141007-russian-entrepreneurs-vote-with-feet-troubles-mount/ Oh, and this special thing here for our russian readers:
http://by24.org/2014/10/06/russian_song_about_putin_recognized_as_old_german_chocolate chip cookie_anthem/ CBA to translate, read with difficulties myself. Only one thought after this remains: you rub on others what you yourself smell like...
Poll