Is Krogstad's decision not to expose Nora's secret convincing in A Doll’s House?

This is a great question because I, as a teacher, have
trouble explaining to my students that perhaps Ibsen did want to demonstrate that "love
changes everything".

However, it is stylistically
acceptable to argue that, in terms of motivation, it does seem a weak movement on his
part. Basically you ask yourself: Does this mean that all he needed was a woman to quit
bothering Nora? Doesn't this open another can of worms?

So,
to me, he was never convincing in any way, and I would think a hundred times about
trusting his "kindness". He is a force not to be reckoned with, and a traitor in his own
right.