Basically, Erdogan has given up on the EU, and to be fair, the EU has probably missed out on an opportunity to draw Turkey into its sphere while the chance existed, and while Erdogan was willing to compromise.
I question whether Erdogan was ever seriously pursuing membership. He probably would have taken it, on good enough terms, but I don't think it was a goal. Too poorly aligned with his religious, autocratic tendencies.
The narrative that makes more sense to me is that Erdogan used membership talks to maintain a moderate reputation, creating a retort to both domestic and international critics. It weakened the position of moderate Kemalists at home, and effectively silenced EU criticism (what were they going to say, "he's a dictator and we'd like him in our club?"). The EU was reluctant to back off that course because it would have alienated an approximate ally well-placed to deal with Iraq and the refugee crisis.
At this point the game is played out; Erdogan has his state control, EU membership is less appealing, and the refugee crisis is, if not fixed, at least no longer new. Everyone got their short-term gains, and the talks can go nowhere just like they were before.
However, it would require Erdogan to be quite an intelligent, long-term thinking person. Which, in my eyes, has to be questioned considering how he is so emotional and short-tempered that he picks any tiny, meaningless war he can get, even if it means suing teenagers who "offend" him.
That's what, based on my limited understanding, is what distinguishes him from Putin. Putin is in many ways similar to Erdogan, but he actually knows that many minor fights are not worth pursuing. Which is why we the Internet can create cartoons and collages ridiculing Putin without being sued by him :)
Seeing Erdogan lacking essential personality traits of a good leader, I somehow have a hard time seeing that he is capable of that type of long-term planning. But who knows. He nevertheless managed to get quite far.
Erdogan confuses me for the same reasons as Trump - he's a petty, immature strongman who has no sense of proportion, but somehow he makes enough clever moves to advance his position. I'm not sure if they're political savants, depending on good advisers, or just lucky and grabbing hold of domestic anger.
Erdogan seems to be a joke of despot compared to the likes of Putin or even Assad, and "he's not competent" is probably the best counterargument to any claim of a big, long-term plan. I just wish I understood how he managed to get this far without the abilities that dictatorship usually requires.
The narrative that makes more sense to me is that Erdogan used membership talks to maintain a moderate reputation, creating a retort to both domestic and international critics. It weakened the position of moderate Kemalists at home, and effectively silenced EU criticism (what were they going to say, "he's a dictator and we'd like him in our club?"). The EU was reluctant to back off that course because it would have alienated an approximate ally well-placed to deal with Iraq and the refugee crisis.
At this point the game is played out; Erdogan has his state control, EU membership is less appealing, and the refugee crisis is, if not fixed, at least no longer new. Everyone got their short-term gains, and the talks can go nowhere just like they were before.