Certainly there's more to world politics than purely economic interests, but a predominantly economic PoV which focuses on finding workable solutions for any conflict - while taking into account possible long-term costs if one sets the wrong precedents - is generally better than ideologically motivated PoVs, for practical purposes.
They only recently started to turn on Erdogan because it only recently (relatively recently, anyway) started to become increasingly doubtful whether the good sides of Erdogan still outweigh the bad. He's much like Nicolas Sarkozy in some ways - both of them always did have ego issues and temper issues, but whether those flaws get in the way of good results depend on the circumstances. Erdogan's problem is that he has been too successful in defeating and defanging his opponents while completely failing - to some extent intentionally no doubt, but I would guess not completely so - to let other leaders rise up within his party who could ensure his succession. It's a sad thing that after more than ten years, the only name observers can come up with as a possibly viable successor is a man who's been in it as long as he himself. He has become, as Egyptians would call it, a pharaoh, and he's in dire need of a reality check and being humbled a little.
Sadly true.