Someone please help me with endgames. I suck

Even with just Kings and pawns there can be tactics.
So there we get to another point.
Defining tactics.
Common mistake:
To think that a move can't be both positional and tactical.
Mistake: Failing to realize that tactics can serve position and also that positional moves can serve tactics.
Positional and tactical go hand in hand.
Anytime you're sure there's no tactics - that doesn't mean there can't be tactics later or tactics in 'lookahead' that you haven't spotted.
But you can't spot everything.
Its important to avoid playing like a computer plays.
Including when you're doing tactics puzzles.

Realize that some issues of the endgame apply to the middlegame and opening too.
Mistakes made in the first two phases of the game can apply to endgames too.
By the way - 'endings' can mean something different from 'endgames'.
Endings can be abbreviation for 'book endings'.
Endgames is a more general term.

You're not wrong, moves can be inherently tactical or positional, but they can also be both, for example: Oftentimes a knight on f5 can be a good knight, positionally it is active and can affect both the center and the kingside. However, it also can create many tactical opportunities, with many beautiful games evidence of this. Really, this general idea gives me Silman feels, he's an excellent writer and player especially for the intermediate.

However, I do think, and this is something I discovered reading that book I recommended, is that the "tactics" in an endgame are different than say the middlegame.

Yes, forks, pins, skewers etc still exist in an endgame, and often they can win games. However, when I think of a tactic in the endgame, I think of opposition, interference, widening the beachhead, etc. These are ideas are the nuances that win endgames, and I think they're much more profitable to learn, rather than hoping or thinking only a blunder of a fork will win you a game.

I loved Silman's "Reassess your Chess" book. It was funny, and I found his language to be simple and easy to understand while still conveying complicated ideas. I haven't read his endgame book, but I would assume it's similar, decent for the intermediate but not above, and overall well written.

Dvoretsky's book is a little harder to read, and I'm guessing much denser in terms of material. But I guarantee that it will serve you until you're 2400, and there's not a single endgame idea missing in that book. I know Kramnik isn't a favorite right now, but he's extremely strong and often reviews the book for tournaments, he wrote the introduction I believe.

I also love your country by the way! A weird side note, but do you speak more languages than English and I'm guessing Armenian?

Awesome! Sorry, I love languages so I had to nerd out a little bit.

Oh that's really cool!

checks in the endgame are often true tactics.
Even if they're by a pawn.
'Shouldering' and 'Trebuchet' and 'enlarged square of the passed pawn' could be considered positional - but they could be considered to be tactical too.
'Endgame tactics'.
Material advantage could be considered positional.
Your opponent's piece has a bad position - its off the board.
But material advantage can be tactical too.
I see basic checkmate positions as tactics - but they're positional too.
The checked square is tactical and the mated king deprived of the surrounding squares is positional.
A check is always tactical. But it can be positional too.

AR regarding memorization - memorizing Basic Checkmates is likely to pay off more than memorizing opening moves.
I believe Botvinnik - arguably the greatest coach ever - at least once said that memorizing opening moves is the worst thing you can do. It was probably said in context though. Memorizing without having the slightest understanding perhaps.
Masters might try to tell you that openings are 'solved'.
That would be misleading.
Checkmates are 'solved'. And Basic Endings are usually solved.
Perfectly.