While /u/Iustis does give some good points, the only thing I can really add is that Napoleon's true interest was survival. The interest of Napoleon was to maintain the survival of his throne and the House of Bonaparte. Yes, he placed his family on thrones but this is more of a "I'm taking care of my family" rather than a purposeful move to place people he trusted; in fact most of the time his family were the worst people to place, Joseph was a mediocre ruler, Louis (father of Napoleon III) was a well loved ruler of Holland and defied Napoleon, causing him to take away the Kingdom of Belgium.

The best evidence is in 1809 when he marries Marie Louise of the House of Habsburg in order to both gain an heir and legitimize his heir. Even in 1814 he was more focused on survival and keeping his son on the throne. He said that he regretted not surrendering sooner so he could keep his son on the throne, a theme that would continue in 1815 after Waterloo.

Edit: Gave proper title to Louis of Holland.

This is probably one of the bigger historical debates. Some see him a a consolidation of the republic into a viable (read: more centralized and autocratic) version while maintaining some of its ideals. For those with this image they tend to focus on the fact that most of his wars were waged against him and will say he was spreading these revolutionary ideals.

A lot of others will focus on his tendency to increase France's borders, establish family members on foreign thrones (Spain being the most egregious example), make large demands of money and men from France and the conquered territories. They are also likely to highlight the increased focus on law and order under Napoleon, with an extensive surveillance state for the early 1800s.

Personally, I am somewhere in between. I think he did have a relatively enlightened philosophy but also saw a huge need to get things done and become more organized. There is a fair amount of evidence that he would have been to content to sit on (enlarged) French borders, and that his attempts to bring huge swathes of land under French control were largely motivated by the need to preserve France's ability to win wars.

Similarly he tended to implement the system of government he felt would best be able to maintain order. Oftentimes this meant one that supported the rising bureaucracy and local elites as opposed to large aristocracy. This can be interpreted as support of republican ideals, but it might have just been practicality.

I will probably add more depth/details later tonight when off my phone if interested. I am sure there are hundreds of great answers you could search for as well.

I find it hard to believe that any individual interested in 'survival' would lead a prolonged and futile winter campaign... I think it is easy to view Napoleon historically in simplistic terms, that is to say; confuse pragmatism with ideals.

Napoleon in essence sought (and I don't mean to evoke crude Marxist terms) to bring, or at least maintain, the revolution in Europe. And he failed. This I think is the impetus behind his actions, and it is one of principle, however is also endemic of failure, that is to say; to think and act solely in principle. This could explain why thousands died marching with him to Russia, and why again only three years later thousands died again as a result of his orders at Waterloo. Essentially Napoleon tried to accomplish a principle but was always defeated by pragmatism.

The term 'really' evokes a secret meaning to Napoleon's actions, as if there was something inherently complex or hidden behind his belligerence towards the monarchies of Europe. Let us assume that his aims were actually simplistic, but his means complex. This creates a totally different portrait, one which coheres not only with a 'survivalist' portrait, but one on the contrary fails to explain why a superior tactician and politician failed to see and heed, what later was to be seen as (or as a result of), elementary underestimations.