I don't understand either, and detest it. I can see the argument that maybe he felt that was a pathway to a longing peace - be "one of them" while pushing liberal ideas forward. He certainly seemed to believe/wish that a lot.
I have never seen a compelling argument made that there was some course Napoleon could have taken in 1800-1804 that would have somehow magically resulted in the powers in Europe accepting France w/o some acceptable historical monarchy at its head. And I suggest that the "better" he was by 21st century standards, the bigger threat he would have been to his enemies.
And of course, all these war crimes of Napoleon - had he only followed the example Russia set dealing with Turkey and the Ottoman empire... such nice/clean/atrocity free* warfare to make humanity proud.
* The lack of survivors to report atrocities is only circumstantial evidence of mass killings.