From wikipedia about Same Origin Policy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-origin_policy
The same-origin policy helps protect sites that use authenticated sessions. The following example illustrates a potential security risk that could arise without the same-origin policy. Assume that a user is visiting a banking website and doesn't log out. Then, the user goes to another site that has some malicious JavaScript code running in the background that requests data from the banking site. Because the user is still logged in on the banking site, the malicious code could do anything the user could do on the banking site. For example, it could get a list of the user's last transactions, create a new transaction, etc. This is because the browser can send and receive session cookies to the banking site based on the domain of the banking site.
This part i understood but now...
The user visiting the malicious site would expect that the site he or she is visiting has no access to the banking session cookie. While it is true that the JavaScript has no direct access to the banking session cookie ...
Because the session cookie is httpOnly flagged?
... it could still send and receive requests to the banking site with the banking site's session cookie. Because the script can essentially do the same as the user would do, even CSRF protections by the banking site would not be effective.
Same Origin Policy prohibits Cross-Origin reads. Thus, if we assume that SOP is not enforced, the malicious site could read the CSRF token from the response? Is that the reason why wikipedia is saying that even CSRF protections would not be effective?
Yes, you've understood it. Without the SOP, the malicious script would simply request whatever page has the CSRF token, read it, and then use that token to construct its unsafe requests.
So SOP and CSRF protection are both necessary to protect the user in a world where the browser sends authentication cookies with requests from foreign domains.